EN   EN 
 
 
 EUROPEAN  
COMMISSION   
Strasbourg, 5.4.2022  
SWD(2022) 99 final  
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  
 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  
 
Accompanying the document  
Proposal for a  
 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  
on substances that deplete the ozone layer and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009  
{COM(2022)  151 final}  - {SEC(2022)  157 final}  - {SWD(2022)  98 final}  -
 {SWD(2022)  100 final}   
 
i 
 Table of contents  
1. INTRODUCTION: POLITI CAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT  ................................ ...............................  7 
1.1. The European Green Deal and the Paris Agreement on Climate 
Change  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  7 
1.2. The Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer  ...................  7 
1.3. The EU ODS Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009)  .............................  8 
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  9 
2.1. What is the problem?  ................................ ................................ .........................  9 
2.1.1.  Where the residual emissions come from  ................................ ............................  10 
2.1.2.  Efficiency issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 15 
2.1.3.  Incomplete monitoring and reporting  ................................ ................................ .. 17 
2.1.4.  Coherence and clarifications  ................................ ................................ .................  18 
3. WHY SHOULD THE EU AC T? ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  20 
3.1. Legal basis  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 20 
3.2. Subsidiarit y: Necessity of EU action  ................................ ...............................  20 
3.3. Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action  ................................ ..........................  21 
4. OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED?  ................................ ................................ ...............  21 
4.1. General (review) objectives  ................................ ................................ .............  21 
4.2. Specific (review) objectives  ................................ ................................ ............  21 
5. WHAT ARE THE AVAILAB LE POLICY OPTIONS?  ................................ ................................ .... 22 
5.1. What is the baseline from which options are assessed?  ................................ .. 22 
5.1.1.  Baseline for environmental impacts  ................................ ................................ ..... 22 
5.1.2.  Baseline for economic impacts ................................ ................................ ..............  22 
5.1.3.  Baseline for other impacts  ................................ ................................ ....................  24 
5.2. Description of the policy options  ................................ ................................ .... 24 
5.2.1.  Review objective A: Achieve a higher level of additional emission reductions  .... 26 
5.2.2.  Review objective B: Improve the efficiency of the Regulation while preserving the 
significant emission reductions achieved so far  ................................ ................................ .... 27 
5.2.3.  Review objective C: Ensure more comprehensive monitoring  .............................  29 
5.2.4.  Review objective D: Improve coherence  ................................ ...............................  30 
5.3. Measures discarded at an early stage  ................................ ...............................  32 
6. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS  OF THE MEASURES IN THE POLICY OPTIONS?  .......................  32 
6.1. Achieve a higher level of additional emission reductions  ...............................  32 
6.2. Improve the efficiency of the Ozone Regulation while preserving the 
significant emission reductions achieved so far  ................................ ..............  38 
 
ii 6.3. Ensure mo re comprehensive monitoring  ................................ .........................  41 
6.4. Improve coherence and clarity  ................................ ................................ ........  43 
7. HOW DO THE OPTIONS C OMPARE?  ................................ ................................ ............................  43 
8. PREFERRED OPTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  47 
8.1. REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency)  ................................ ............  47 
9. HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPA CTS BE MONITORED AND  EVALUATED?  ................................ .. 48 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION  ................................ ................................ ............................  50 
ANNEX 2: SYNOPSIS RE PORT OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS  ................................ ..........  53 
ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFE CTED AND HOW?  ................................ ................................ ..........................  58 
ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 62 
ANNEX 5: DETAILED IN FORMATION ON HALON B ANKS  ................................ ...............................  81 
ANNEX 6: DETAILED IN FORMATION ON FOAMS R ECOVERY  ................................ .......................  84 
ANNEX 7: LIST OF CLA RIFICATIONS NEEDED I N REGULATION  ................................ ..................  95 
ANNEX 8: MEASURES AN D INTERVENTION LOGIC  OF REGULATION (EC) NO 
1005/2009  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  96 
ANNEX 9: LIST OF DIS CARDED OPTIONS  ................................ ................................ .............................  1 
ANNEX 10: VISUAL AID  SHOWING THE LINKS B ETWEEN THE PROBLEMS 
IDENTIFIED, RELEVANT  DRIVERS AND INDIVID UAL MEASURES TO ADDR ESS 
THE PROBLEMS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 5 
 
  
 
iii Glossary  
Term or acronym  Meaning or definition  
2-BTP 2-bromo -3,3,3 -trifluoroprop -1-ene (C3H2F3Br);  a halon replacement 
in fire -fighting equipment  
Bank(s)  The amount of ozone -depleting substances (ODS) contained in 
existing equipment (e.g. refrigerators, foams, fire equipment), 
chemical stockpiles and other products, including after their end of 
useful lifeor recovered and stored ready for use  
BAT Best Available Technique (as relevant to the Industrial Emissions 
Directive)  
CERTEX  IT system that allows to exchange data (“certificates”) on relevant 
ODS shipments between the central EU ODS licensing system and 
custom offices in the Member States direc tly; IT precursor of the 
European Single Window Environment for Customs  
CDW  Construction and demolition wastes  
CFCs  Chlorofluorocarbons. Group of ODS consisting only of chlorine, 
fluorine, and carbon. First generation of ozone -depleting substances 
banne d by the Montreal Protocol. CFCs were commonly used as 
refrigerants, solvents, and foam blowing agents  
CF3I  Trifluoroiodomethane : an ODS listed in Annex II  
CO 2e(equivalent)  The quantity of a gas in metric tonnes multiplied by its associated 
global warming potential (GWP). This is used to compare the 
emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global 
warming potential  
Consumption  The quantity of ODS produced plus imported, minus the quantity 
exported minus the quantity destroyed. Calcul ation of consumption 
under the Montreal Protocol excludes non -virgin bulk imports and 
exports, as well as substances intended for feedstock and process 
agent use  
CTC Carbon tetrachloride, also called tetrachloromethane  (CCl 4); 
commonly used as a raw material in many industrial uses, including 
the production of chlorofluorocarbons and as a solvent  
DCM  Dichloromethane, also called methylene chloride (CH2Cl2); used 
commonly as a solvent  
EEA European Environment Agency  
E-PRTR  European Polluta nt Release and Transfer Register  
Feedstock  Any substance that undergoes chemical tran sformation in a process 
to synthesise other chemicals in which it is entirely converted from its 
original composition  
F-gases  Fluorinated greenhouse gases  as defined by Regulation (EU) No 
 
iv 517/2014  
F-gas Regulation  Regulation (EU) No 517/2014  
GWP  Globa l warming potential : a metric for determining the relative 
contribution of a substance to climate warming. The GWP indicates 
how much (solar) energy the emissions of 1 ton of a gas will absorb 
(and thus contribute to climate warming) over a given per iod of time, 
e.g. 100 year s for GWP 100, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of carbon 
dioxide (CO 2). 
Halons  Group of ODS containing bromine and fluorine and one or two 
carbons. Their production is banned, but existing (non -virgin) halons 
may still be placed on the EU market for “critical uses”, e.g. for fire -
fighting on aircrafts  and in other specialised applications  
HCFCs  Hydrochlorofluorocarbons : group of ODS consisting of hydrogen, 
chlorine, fluorine and carbon. Second generation of ozone -depleting 
substances . They were used to replace chlorofluorocarbons due to 
their lower ozone -depleting potential (ODP, see definition later)  
HCFC -22 Chlorodifluoromethane (CHClF2). The most common HCFC. used in 
refrigeration in the past, and still used as a feedstock chemical t oday  
HFCs  Hydrofluorocarbons (, F -gases  rather than ODS ), consisting of 
hydrogen, fluorine and carbon. They have been used as replacements 
for ODS because they do not deplete the ozone layer. However , they 
are powerful greenhouse gases  
HFC-23 Trifluoromethane  
HTOC  Montreal Protocol’s Halons Technical Options Committee (sub -group 
of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) of the 
Montreal Protocol)  
ICAO  International Civil Aviation Organization  
IED Industrial Emissions Directive  
ISG European Commission Inter Service Group accompanying the 
impact assessment  
Laboratory and analytical uses  Use of an ODS as a necessary component or part of a laboratory or 
analytical process. Decision IX/17 of the Montreal Protocol 
introduced an exemption for laboratory and analytical uses of ODS  
(Montreal ) Protocol  The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer : 
an international treaty governing the protection of stratospheric 
ozone  
New ODS  Substances listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009, 
whether alone or in a mixture, and whether they are virgin, 
recovered, recycled or reclaimed. These substances are not 
controlled under the Montreal Protocol  
 
v Non -Article 5 countries  “Developed ” countries, i.e. Parties to the Montreal Protocol not 
operating under its Article 5  (the latter defines the “developing 
countries”)  
ODP  Ozone -depleting potential : the amount of ozone depletion caused 
by a substance. More specifically, it is the ratio of global loss of 
ozone due to a given substance and global loss of ozone due to 
trichlorofluoromethane (CFC -11) of the same mass. CFC -11 is 
assigned an ODP value of 1 . The O DP values of the different ODS 
range from close to 0 to 10. The higher the ODP value, the more the 
substance depletes the ozone layer  
tODP  Metric tonnes of a substance multiplied by its ozone -depleting 
potential, resulting in ODP -weighted tonnes. As an example, 1 
metric tonne of HCFC -22 equals 0.055 tODP, while  1 metric tonne of 
halon -1301 equals 10 tODP -t. This is because halon -1301 depletes  
the ozone layer considerably more than HCFC -22 
ODS  Ozone -depleting substances, i.e. substances that lead to a 
deterioration of the stratospheric ozone layer by photochemical 
reactions releasing reactive halogens (bromine, chlorine atoms) that 
lead to the  breakup of ozone molecules  
Ozone hole  A large area of the stratospheric ozone layer with very low amounts 
of ozone  
Ozone layer  Region of the upper atmosphere containing relatively high 
concentrations of ozone molecules. It protects humans and other 
living things from harmful UV radiation from the sun  
Ozone layer depletion  Chemical destruction of ozone molecules in the ozone layer leading 
to low concentrations of ozone and more UV radiation reaching the 
Earth’s surface  
Placing on the market  Supplying or making available to third persons within the European 
Union for the first time, for payment or free of charge  
Process agents  Substances  used in chemical reactions in industrial processes but, 
contrary to feedstock, do not undergo chemical transformations 
themselves during the process. The applications where ODS are 
allowed to be used as process agents are listed in Annex III to 
Regulation  (EC) No 1005/2009  
Reclamation  Reprocessing of a recovered ODS  in order to meet the equivalent 
performance of a virgin substance, taking into account its intended 
use 
Recovery  Collection and storage of ODS  from products and equipment or 
containers during maintenance or servicing or before disposal  
 
vi Recycling  Reuse of a recovered ODS  following a basic cleaning process  
REIO  Regional Economic Integration Organization. The EU is considered a 
REIO pursuant to Article 1(6) of the Vienna Convention for the 
Protection of the Ozone Layer  
RSB Regulatory Scrutiny Board  
PCE Perchloroethylene (also called Tetrachloroethylene or –ethene, 
C2Cl4); used commonly e.g. in dry cleaning  
SAP Scientific Assessment Panel (of the Montreal Protocol)  
Single Window  European Single Environment for Customs; 
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/general -information -
customs/electronic -customs/eu -single -window -environment -for-
customs_en  
TARIC  TARI C = Integrated tariff of the EU  
TFE Tetrafluoroethylene (or –ethene, C 2F4); used commonly in the 
production of fluoro -polymers  
UV radiation  Ultraviolet radiation : Portion of the electromagnetic spectrum with 
wavelengths shorter than visible light. When the ozone layer 
becomes thin, more UV radiation from the sun reaches Earth’s 
surface and may have hazardous effects on the biospere including 
humans  
UNEP  United Nat ions Environment Programme, now UN Environment  
Use of ODS  The utilisation of ODS in the production, maintenance or servicing 
(including refilling ), of products and equipment or in other 
processes  
Virgin ODS  Newly produced ODS that have not previously been used  
VSLS  Very Short -Lived Substance  
WFD  Waste Framework Directive  
 
1 1. 1. INTRODUCTION : POLITICAL AND LEGAL C ONTEXT  
1.1. 1.1. The European Green Deal and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change  
The European Green Deal1 aims at preventing climate change and protecting, conserving and 
enhancing the EU's natural capital as well as protecting the health and well -being of citizens 
from environment -related risk s. Emissions from ozone -depleting substances (ODS) are 
resulting both in the formation of a ‘hole’ in the ozone layer , as well as in contributing to 
climate warming. Consequently, preventing such emissions is key to preventing adverse 
health effects from a damaged  ozone layer  and for reaching the objective of the Paris 
Agreement on Climate Change . This report is an impact assessment of options that aim at 
improving the EU’s policy to reduce such emissions.   
ODS are man -made chemicals that frequently reach the upper atmosphere after  emission. The 
so-called “hole” in the ozone layer was discovered in the 1980s. It is now on the way to 
recovery2 which  is preventing  any further  significant adverse impacts on our health  and the 
biosphere , as well as having widespread  economic implications.  Most ODS are also very 
strong greenhouse gases. Global action to eliminate ODS has already achieved  significant 
climate -related  benefits, e.g. the positive climate impact s from  saved ODS emissions for the 
period  1988 to 2010 were 5 -6 times hi gher than those achieved during  the Kyoto Protocol’s 
first commitment period.3  
The climate relevance of ODS emissions is not included  in the EU’s climate target to reach at 
least 55% emission reductions by 2030. Thus, any action to reduce ODS emissions fu rther 
would result in additional savings4 for the climate and contribute to reaching climate 
neutrality by 2050.  
1.2. 1.2. The Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer  
In 1987, the international community adopted the Montreal Protocol on Sub stances that 
Deplete the Ozone Layer5 (hereafter: the Protocol), which phases out the production and 
consumption6 of substances that contribute to ozone depletion in the stratosphere. The 
Protocol covers nearly 100 substances, e.g. groups7 of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), 
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and halons. Each ODS  has a specific ozone -depleting 
                                                           
1 https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities -2019 -2024/european -green -deal_en  
2 Expected for the second half of the century  
3 UNEP (2011). A critical link in protecting the climate and the ozone layer. 
https://www.unep.org/reso urces/report/hfcs -critical -link-protecting -climate -and-ozone -layer   
4 Current annual EU ODS emissions are about as large as Sweden’s  emissions  
5 Text of the original Montreal Protocol, see 
https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%201522/volume -1522 -i-26369 -english.pdf . 
6 Consumption is calculated based on import, export, production and destruction.  
7 For instance within the group of CFCs there are 15 types of CFCs, e.g. CFC11 and CFC217  
 
2 potential (ODP) value assigned to it. Conversely, the climate impact of each ODS , i.e. its 
global warming potential (GWP)8, is not mentione d in the Protocol.  
The Protocol and subsequent decisions of its 197 Parties have created a global legal 
framework for controlling ODS. The EU and its Member States are legally bound to phase -
out schedules of production and consumption for the different gr oups of ODS. All phase -out 
dates are now in the past . The latest was reached in 2020 for the group of HCFCs, leaving 
only a few exempted uses of ODS in developed countries  still remaining  (see below). Other 
compulsory obligations under the Protocol include  the need to have a licensing system and 
yearly reporting on ODS trade and use. The EU has taken a leading role both through its 
positive contribution to the international negotiations and legal framework, but also by 
setting policies at EU level that ofte n go beyond the requirements of the Protocol, e.g. 
the EU completed the HCFC consumption phase -out already in 2010 .  
1.3. 1.3. The EU ODS Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009)  
Regulation (EC) No 1005/20099 (hereafter: the Regulation) is the main EU instrument to 
ensure that the EU fulfils its obligations under the Protocol . It also has the self -standing 
objective to achieve a high level of ambition for protecting the ozone layer  and 
contributing to climate change mitigation  in the EU. The scope of the Ozone Regulation 
covers, in Annex I, the ODS that are identical to the scope of the Protocol, as well as the 
products and equipment using them. In addition, it covers, in Annex II, new substances (“new 
ODS”) th at are not (yet) controlled by the Protocol. Except for halon -1202, the new ODS are 
currently only monitored in order to recognise any emerging issues.  
To achieve its objectives, the Regulation generally prohibits the production, trade and 
use of ODS (Ann ex I) while exempting only a few specified uses  where alternatives were 
not available at the time of its adoption (2009). Consequently, all traditional uses of ODS, 
e.g. in cooling, aerosols (i.e. in spray cans) and foams are no longer allowed. The remaini ng 
exempted uses today are:  
 Use as feedstock chemical10 in the chemical production to produce a number of high -
value, indispensable goods including polymers, plastics, pesticides and 
pharmaceuticals,  
 Use of three ODS as process agents11 in five old chemical plants for specific 
chemical production processes,  
                                                           
8 The ODP  of a substance refers to its relative amount of ozone depletion  caused by it compared to the impact 
of a similar mass of CFC -11 (ODP = 1), e.g Halon 1301 has  on ODP of 10, so for the same amount based on 
weight Halon -1301 it 10 times worse than for CFC -11. The GWP  of a substance refers to its relative 
contribution to climate warming  compared to  the impact of a similar mass of carbon dioxide (CO 2), .e.g. CFC11  
has a GWP of 4660, so its “climate forcing” is almost 5000 times worse than the same mass of CO 2 (GWP used 
here is based on the impact over 100 years) . 
9 https://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32009R1005  
10 In feedstock use, the chemica l undergoes chemical transformation in a process to synthesise other 
chemicals during  which it is entirely converted from its original composition  
11 In process agent use, the ODS  is facilitat ing or inhibit ing a chemical reaction in an industrial process, and 
contrary to feedstock  use, the ODS remains intact (is  not being chemical ly transform ed)  
 
3  Use by laboratories and for analytical purposes , and  
 Critical uses of halons related to fire protection of specific parts of aircraft and 
military equipment.  
In addition to the above , there exists the possibility of the emergency use of methyl bromide12 
as an effective killing agent for some agricultural pests.13 Destruction and reclamation of 
ODS is also still allowed. In addition, to prevent illegal activities and to comply with 
licen cing and reporting obligations under the Protocol, the Regulation foresees strict 
measures to control and monitor the remaining uses of ODS. An overview over the individual 
measures and the logic al framework is given in Annex 8 . 
The Commission decided to submit the Regulation to a REFIT evaluation in 2017 to check if 
it was fit for purpose. On the basis of the evaluation14 completed in 2019 (hereafter “the 
evaluation”), it was decided to proceed with a revision of the Regulation in the Commission 
Work Progr amme for 2021.   
The Regulation has close links to other EU legislation, notably Regulation (EU ) 517/2014  on 
fluorinated greenhouse gases, as the se gases  have replaced ODS in many of their original uses 
and the two Regulations apply similar measures to reduce the substances controlled and their 
emissions . Both Regulation are  being reviewed in parallel. There are also close links to , inter 
alia, waste15 and chemical16 policies, and customs and market surveillance legislation.  
2. 2. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
2.1. 2.1. What is the problem?  
The evaluation found that the Regulation ensures compliance with the Protocol and exerts a 
positive influence on third countries to do likewise. It has safeguarded a high environmental 
ambition by eliminating the majority of past ODS uses, while also ensur ing a level playing 
field for concerned industries and undertakings among Member States. Thus, most of the 
                                                           
12 On a permit from the European Commission only, based on a request from a competent authority of a 
Member State.  
13 This possibility has not been used in the EU since 2010.  
14 EVALUATION of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 
September 2009 on substances that deplete the ozone layer {SWD(2019) 407 final} 
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/default/files/ozone/docs/swd_2019_406_en.pdf   
15 E.g. Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006  on transboundary waste shipments, the Waste Electrical and Electroni c 
Equipment Directive 2012/19/EU  and the Waste Framework Directive  (Directive 2008/98/EC) . 
16 E.g. REACH ( Regulation (EC) Nr 1907/2006 ), the Industrial Emissions Directive ( Directive 2010/75/EU ) and 
the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (ePRT R) Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 .  An effective ODS policy that is preventing ODS emissions to the extent feasible  
remains crucial for the Green Deal , notably for achiev ing full recovery of the 
ozone layer  and contributing  to climate neutrality and  staying below the 2 or 1.5 
degrees Celsius target of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. ODS e mission 
savings will be additional to the min. 55% reductions from other sectors by 2030 . 
 
4 obligations and measures of the current Regulation are fit for purpose and should 
therefore remain in place (see intervention logic in Annex 8).  
Howe ver, the design of the Regulation could be slightly improved:  
i. Some measures are not sufficiently efficient ;  
ii. There are minor gaps in monitoring ; and 
iii. There is a n eed for  clarity  and coherence  with other rule s. 
As most uses are now prohibited, effective  control needs to be maintained  in the long run.  
Furthermore, in light of the Green Deal and the goal of reaching climate neutrality by 2050, 
any remaining emissions of ODS should be scrutinised to determine  if further emission 
reductions would be technical ly feasible at proportionate costs. The drivers for these issues 
and developments are described below.  
 
 
 
2.1.1.  2.1.1.  Where the residual emissions come from  
The main emissions (over 98% both ozone and climate effect17) are a result of ODS banks18, 
in particular from insulation foam s19. Additionally, some emissions result from production 
and the exempted uses of ODS (listed in Annex I); production and the use of new ODS (listed 
in Annex II); and ODS not listed in the Ozone Regulation, see Table 1.  
 
Table 1.  2019 emissions of ODS from different sources and recent trends of emissions factors   
 
  ODS source  2019 Emissions  
Raw materials  Production of ODS (Annex I)  10* ODPt       &       0.06 Mt CO2e  
Production of Annex II 
substances  Not reported, estimated as 4 tODP based on emission 
factors established for Annex I substances as above  
(Exempted)  
Use of ODS  Feedstock – Annex I  35 ODPt        &       0.20 Mt CO2e  
Feedstock – Annex II  18 O DPt        &       0.010 Mt CO2e  
Process agents – Annex I  4 ODPt          &       0.014 Mt CO2e  
Laboratory use – Annex I  < 1 ODPt        &       ca 0 Mt CO2e***  
                                                           
17 Any amount  of emissions in terms of mass  has both a value in t ODP  and in tCO 2e. It is calculated by taking 
the weight of emissions in tons from each substance and multipl ying it by its ODP and its GWP. Then the 
respective results in tODP and tCO2e from all substances are added up.  To make the calculation, the respective 
amounts of the individual substances must be known.  
18 ODS banks: The amount of ODS contained in existing equipment and products (e .g. refrigerators or 
insulation foams), including after their end of useful life, and chemical stockpiles; or recovered and stored 
ready for use  
19 Old cooling equipment with ODS (e.g. refrigerators) are not in use anymore , but those already present in 
land fills and where the ODS was not removed and destroyed, contribute to these emissions.  This review seeks to step up ambition  without questioning the overall concept, 
approach and measures of the Regulation,  as it was generally deemed to be fit for 
purpose. It also explores how the design of the Regulation can be fine -tuned  to 
improve efficiency of existing measures and maintain effective  control . Many 
suggested changes will result in minor improvements without other impacts.  
 
 
5 Halon for critical use  23.7 ODPt      &       0.015 Mt CO2e  
Total Annex I  
 Total exempted uses & 
production  74 O DPt         &      ca 0.3 Mt CO2e  
Total Annex II  Feedstock use  
& production  22 O DPt         &       ca 0.01 Mt CO2e  
 
Banks  
 Insulation Foams  Ca. 60 00** O DPt     &     ca. 37 Mt CO2e  
* Extrapolated value based on available data for 10% of the total production  
** Value based on data from  SKM Enviros (2012)20  
*** Composition not known but climate effects will be < 0.01 MtCO2e  
2.1.1.1. 2.1.1.1.  Continuing emissions from ODS foam banks  
(i) Status quo of the issue  
The main source of current and future emissions are from certain building materials 
containing foams blown with ODS21. ODS emissions occur when buildings using such 
foams are renovated or demolished and the foams are crushed or shredded (releasing the ODS 
gas from the foam). In addition, significant emissions occur if relatively intact foa ms from 
construction and demolition waste (CDW) are landfilled without treatment, as the remaining 
ODS gases will slowly leak out over time. Annual emissions from all foam banks are 
estimate d to be ca. 6000 tODP or 37 Mt CO2e  today .  
(ii) Drivers  
The Regulation  only requires recovery when it is technically and economically feasible . 
This is open to interpretation and results in little recovery activity in most Member States22, 
given the weak legislative requirement to recover  only if technically and economically 
feasible . This requirement places the burden of pro of on authorities and would require rather 
strong enforcement efforts to ensure that the right judgement call is made each time ODS 
foams are being crushed or shredded. In practice, t he technical and econo mic feasibility to 
recover ODS depends on the type of foam (e.g. panels, boards, spray or block; see Annex 6), 
and where it is installed.  
Large  quantities of ODS foams will enter the waste stream each year until 2050, with peak 
amounts reached only after  2030 (see Fig. A6.1 in Annex 6). As it is often more costly to 
separate, transport and destroy the ODS contained in the foam, standard disposal via 
landfilling without ODS recovery is common practise . Rising prices of raw materials and 
                                                           
20 SKM Enviros (2012)  “Further Assessment of Policy Options for the Management and Destruction of Banks of 
ODS and F -Gases in the EU” . In their study for the Commission, SKM developed a revised banks model using 
bottom -up data from the insulation sector. As one of the main findings, the SKM study highlighted the 
dominant role of CFCs in old building insulation products. The data was confirmed by the stakeholder 
consultations carried out for the Evaluation. Given that no more ODS were used in new foams after 2003 in the 
EU-28, the banks estimations from the 2012 are considered still accurate.  
21 ODS were  used in the manufa cturing of foams in the past: ODS were injected into a liquid, creating bubbles 
that provide the insulating capabilities. The hardened foam consist of a matrix and enclosed ODS gas bubbles.  
22 SKM Enviros  (2012) “Further Assessment of Policy Options for the  Management and Destruction of  Banks of 
ODS and F -Gases in the EU” .  
 
6 costs of landfilling are expected to encourage some more recycling and recovery of foams in 
the future.  
(iii)  How the problem will evolve  
Very significant amounts of emissions, in particular in climate terms, are expected to 
continue from the lack of recovery of ODS from foams during the refurbishment and 
demolition of buildings. Annual emissions will increase to ca. 67 00 tODP or 43 million 
tCO2e  (between 2030 -35), about half of the total amounts entering the waste stream each 
year. After 203 5 this trend will reverse, but the potential emissions still remain at ca. 4000 
tones tODP or 23 million tCO2e even in 2050 (Fig. 1). This is due to the growing 
contribution of long -term leakage from landfilled ODS foams, even though the amount of 
ODS foams entering the waste stream will already have been  significantly reduced by 2050.  
The main sources of ODS emissions from insulation foams are metal -faced  panels and 
laminated boards, with smaller contributions from block foam and spray foam  (see Fig. A6.1 
in Annex 6) . 
Figure 1.  Expected EU annual emissions from foam banks  
 
 
2.1.1.2. 2.1.1.2.   Continuing emissions from production and (exempted) uses of 
ODS (Annex I), new ODS (Annex II) and ODS not listed  
(i) Status quo of the issue  
The magnitude of these emission is much smaller than that of foam banks :  
 Total annual emissions from the exempted uses of Annex I ODS, including their 
production , are estimated to be ca. 74 tODP or 0.3 Mt CO2e (2019 data). Emission rates 
(emissions divided by the quantities used), where available23, have generally declined in 
                                                           
23 There are some indications, e.g. from data reported under the E -PRTR, that these emission rates might be 
higher than stated here.  05.00010.00015.00020.00025.00030.00035.00040.00045.000
01.0002.0003.0004.0005.0006.0007.0008.000
2020 2030 2040 2050
Global Warming Potential 
(kTCO2e)Ozone depleting potential
(tonnes CFC equivalent)
ODPt kTCO2e
 
7 recent years (2010 to 2019, see Table A4.2 in Annex 4). However, the quantities used as 
feedstock in chemical production continue to be significant (ca. 39,000 tODP used in 
2019, other exempted uses are 1 -2 magnitudes lower; see Table A4.1 in Annex 4). While 
these few exempted uses persist for the sole reason that suitable alternatives are difficult to 
find, there appear to be alternatives to the use of ODS in two feedstock processes24 and for 
the use of halons in some military equipment25.  
 Total annual emissions from production or feedstock use of O DS listed in Annex II  is 
estimated a t 22 tODP or 0.01 Mt CO2e (2019 data). Feedstock uses in chemical 
production processes are significant (20,500 tODP). However, emission rates are 
estimated (in the absence of comprehensive reporting data) to be as low as  those of Annex 
I feedstock use. For other uses of Annex II ODS (only about 1% of total quantities used) 
or for ODS not listed, emissions and use data is not known in detail. ODS not currently 
listed26 have lower ODPs and GWPs, but recent research results i ndicate that some of them 
may be relevant for ozone depletion nonetheless.  
(ii) Drivers  
 Annex I exempted uses : In practice the Regulation does not require  further 
reductions of the quantities used for the exempted uses27, although there are some 
measures in the Regulation targeting these uses (quota system for import and production; 
total limits and limits per installation on  process agent use in 5 remaining chemical 
plants28 and an upper limit for laboratory uses) . These l imits are not very restrictive and 
often far exceed the actual needs. Tightening limits without possibly restricting vital 
economic activities is not straightforward, as for most exempted uses , suitable alternatives 
are not available  (yet) . Still, the Regu lation does require undertakings to take all 
precautionary measures practicable to prevent emissions during use. Furthermore, it is 
possible to regulate ODS emissions, e.g. from chemical production and feedstock use, 
under the Industrial Emissions Directiv e (Directive 2010/75/EU, IED) . To do so would 
require  identifying them as a key environmental parameter in Best Available Techniques 
(BAT) relevant for installations in order to obtain operation permits . This has rarely been 
the case so far , however . 
 For the use of halons to service a few remaining types of critical appliances, the 
Regulation stipulates a phase -out schedule up to 2040.  These uses depend on existing 
stocks of halons and halons reclaimed from old equipment, as production of new halons 
                                                           
24 There processes are the use of (i) HCFC -22 to produce  tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) and (ii) carbontetrachloride 
(CTC) to produce perchloroethylene (PCE).  
25 These uses are for fixed fire protection systems of (i) engine compartments on military ground vehicles, and 
(ii) normally unoccupied engine spaces on milit ary surface ships. Alternatives are also available for the inerting 
of fuel tanks on aircraft and in lavatory waste receptacles, but remaining quantities used are very low for the 
latter two uses.  
26 Besides other ODSs where the uses, sectors or emission sources are completely different (such as N2O) and 
therefore not considered to be regulated by the Regulation.  
27 Except use of halons in critical equipment (see further below)  
28 Commission Decision 20 10/372/EU, updated by Commission Decision 2014/8/EU  
 
8 for th ese uses is prohibited globally under the Protocol29. Recent assessments carried out 
by the Protocol’s Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) indicated that non -virgin 
halon stocks for critical uses might not be sufficient to meet the needs from 2030 onw ards 
at global level . If future demand for halons cannot be met (including at the global level) , 
new production of halons could become necessary which would result in additional 
emissions.  
 The use of Annex II ODS is not restricted by the Regulation30. Their future use will 
depend , to a large degree , on growth in the sectors using them as feedstock and therefore 
on the general economic situation. There are also some emissive uses (e.g. as solvents) and 
a potential use of trifluoroiodomethane (CF 3I) in blends used for refrigeration and air 
conditioning appliances.  
(iii)  How the problem will evolve  
Emissions from  the use of ODS in chemical production (production, feedstock, process 
agents) of both Annex I & II ODS are expected to continue but may slowly declin e over the 
next decades (see Fig. 2). Emissions from EU production of ODS are also expected to be 
sustained with a slow decline in the long run (see Table 4.4 in Annex 4). In addition, very 
small emissions (< 1 tODP) from laboratory and analytical use are assumed to be constant 
over time, as confirmed by stakeholders.  
Figure 2. Baseline emissions of ODS -using chemical production processes in tODP (controlled substances = 
Annex I)  
 
Halon emissions in tODP are estimated to decline by 40% until 204031 and to fall to zero  
thereafter, as all equipment must be halon free by then according to the Regulation. However, 
this does not take into account that additional emissions of halons with very high ODPs and 
GWPs may occur if new production of halons becomes nec essary.  An important rationale for 
                                                           
29 And therefore also by the Regulation  
30 Except for Halon 1202 listen in Annex II(A) to which similar restrictions apply as for Annex I ODS  
31 It is possible that emission s reduce more quickly if equipment is replaced ahead of phase -out dates.  

 
9 the strict EU phase -out schedule for all halon -using equipment has been to drive the 
development of alternatives, and avoid that production would risk to be permitted again at 
global level.  
2.1.2.  2.1.2.  Efficiency issues  
The ev aluation concluded that the Regulation has been efficient overall, but for some 
measures the costs incurred have been more significant than originally foreseen, and some 
costs for companies persist even though they may no longer be necessary for effective  control 
now the traditional uses have been phased out and the focus is mostly on strictly controlling 
the exempted uses. In particular, the evaluation showed that the following could be improved:  
 The licensing system for imports and exports, and more ef ficient control of illegal 
trade ,  
 The registration system for laboratories,  
 The quota systems for import and production of exempted uses,  
 One prohibition date for halon use aboard aircraft that is infeasible and leading to 
costs.  
(i) Status quo of the issue  
 The current  licensing system creates a high burden for EU -level administration and 
unnecessary costs for industry . Providing effective control of trade with third countries 
at reasonable effort is extremely important to prevent illegal activities. To this end,  
licen sing of imports and exports is required by the Montreal Protocol and an EU -wide 
ODS licensing system is in operation. However, there are costs linked to the manual 
granting of licenses at shipment level and the need for economic operators to apply fo r 
licenses for each shipment in addition to declaring at customs. At the same time, t he 
European Commission has set up an IT system (CERTEX) that allows the exchange of 
data (“certificates”) on relevant ODS shipments between the central EU ODS licensing 
system and custom offices in the Member States directly. The Commission proposal for a 
Regulation establishing the EU Single Window Environment for Customs32, currently 
being negotiated with legislators,  makes  the use of this  system obligatory  in all Member 
States. Due to the linking of the two IT systems, the information in the customs 
declaration information will be  automatically transferred for each shipment  to the ODS 
licen sing system to be checked and stored, and customs offices will be  advised on ho w to 
proceed with the shipment.  
 Stakeholders, in particular in the chemical industry, have recently expressed great 
concerns about the growing importance of illegal trade33. It seems that rogue traders 
are using e.g. special custom s procedures (temporary storage, transit etc.) to illegally place 
ODS on the market. The current ODS rules, notably the licensing system in combination 
                                                           
32 https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/general -information -customs/electronic -customs/eu -single -
window -environment -for-customs_en  
33 While most illegal activities concern the related s ector of F -gases, there are also some activities reported 
that concern ODS  
 
10 with the legal base for custom s controls, does not appear adequate in prevent ing such 
activities.  
 The registration system for laboratories using very small quantities of ODS leads to 
excessive costs compared to the benefits. Registration of all laboratories using ODS is 
intended to prevent that ODS imported or produced for exempted laboratory and analytical 
uses are not used for processes where ODS is not needed or allowed. However, most users 
consume ODS only in miniscule amounts, e.g. for testing (often below 0.1 kg per year), so 
the environmental damage avoided is minimal. Many are SMEs that face entry costs in 
understanding the legislation, becoming acquainted wi th the registration system and 
providing the right information. Moreover, laboratories may be unaware about the need to 
register. This puts into question the cost -efficiency and effectiveness of the requirement. 
That being said, the collected information f rom the registration system has, in the past, 
been useful in facilitating the work of the technical bodies of the Protocol to better 
understand these uses.  
 Costs of the  annual quota systems  for import and production of exempted uses are 
disproportionate c ompared to the benefits.  Based on the results of the evaluation, 
import and production quotas did not result in any no ticeable environmental effects, 
although they proved to be  effective at reduc ing the use of the relevant substance groups in 
the past  when  the EU was still reducing the general consumption and production of ODS 
(Annex I) under the Protocol’s schedules . As this has now been achieved, the remaining 
exempted uses are allowed only to the extent that they are actually needed . A quota system 
therefore appears  to be  redundant.  
 One halon prohibition date cannot be met and may therefore create administrative 
costs for airline companies and authorities linked to the need for individual 
derogation requests . The aircraft industry is finding it challenging to find suitable 
alternatives for the protection of unoccupied cargo compartments on airplanes.  
(ii) Drivers  
 The Regulation requires the presentation  to customs  of an import license for each 
import ed and export ed shipment . Given the linking of custom s offices to the EU central 
database , and once this system becomes mandatory in all Member States , the additional 
step of a prior application process on a shipment basis will no longer be necessary , as 
every shipment  can be checked automatically as regards the information contained in the 
central database and determine its legality on that basis . Maintaining the requirement 
would therefore be creating costs with no corresponding benefit. Instead, a one -time 
registrati on (with periodic renewal) of the trader stating the specific conditions under 
which the trader may import or export, would be fully sufficient (a “trader licence”)  and 
will be checked and monitored through the CERTEX/Single Window system .  
 The flexibility  offered to traders by some custom s procedures might limit a good EU -
wide enforcement  including border controls.  
 The Regulation requires a large number of affected (small) entities using very small 
amounts of ODS  to keep their  registration in the central database updated for 
laboratory and analytical uses .  
 
11  The Regulation requires the Commission to  allocate quotas and companies to  hold 
quotas for importing and producing ODS , which result in costs for authorities and 
companies .  
 The Regulation requires  that halons may not be used in the fire protection of 
normally unoccupied cargo compartments in newly type certified airplanes . 
(iii)  How the problem will evolve  
 The costs savings potential by carrying out automatic shipment -level controls through 
CERTEX/Single Window will not be realised, as manual controls and pre -applications for 
licenses would have to continue , even though a better34 control  is already achieved 
through the automatic checking  of all relevant import and expo rt ship ment data with data 
contained in the central database . Based on the findings of the evaluation, c osts for 
businesses (total €114,000 p.a.) and the Commission (132 person days p.a. plus cross -
cutting IT costs35) will continue at today’s levels with only slig ht decreases until 2050. 
Illegal imports linked to special custom s procedures will be difficult to avoid and represent 
potential emissions.  
 Laboratories and other entities carrying out analysis will continue to bear costs (total 
€50,000 p.a.  based on the evaluation ) long -term for keeping their registrations updated, at 
little environmental benefit. The Commission will continue to have costs for using and 
maintaining the relevant IT system (99 person days p.a.,  €31,500 IT costs , based on the 
evaluation ). 
 The quota systems will continue to create costs for companies (€11,000 p.a.  based on 
evaluation ) and authorities (60 person days p.a. for Commission, some costs also for 
Member States , based on the evaluation ), decreasing only slightly in the long term.  
 The currently infeasible halon prohibition will , according to the evaluation,  create costs 
for aviation companies (120 person days), Member States (120 person days) and the 
Commission (320 person days) until a viable alternative is found.   
2.1.3.  2.1.3.  Incomplete  monitoring and reporting  
(i) Status quo of the issue  
While the evaluation found that the monitoring system in place is by and large adequate , 
except for the possibility of adding a few substances for monitoring, some Member State  
authorities and representativ es of civil society suggested additions to get an even better 
overview, especially in view of the current shift towards also recognising the climate 
relevance of ODS. In particular, the system lacks mandatory reporting on:  
 Feedstock use and destruction of new ODS (Ann ex II) despite high amounts (about 
half of A nnex I substances in tODP) ;  
 Emissions resulting from production and destruction by all emitters and at substance 
level. Some aggregate ODS emissions are monitored by the European Pollutant 
                                                           
34 Due to the manual process many licenses are not checked at customs today  
35 Cross -cutting IT costs for licensing, registration and quota: 168 person days annual plus 177,700 annua l IT 
implementation costs (see Table A4.7 and A4.8 in Annex 4)  
 
12 Release an d Transfer Register (Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 requiring Member 
States to report emissions from industrial facilities), but some thresholds apply and 
not all ODS emitters are in scope. Furthermore, the aggregate parameter based on 
weight does not allow t o determine the relevance for the ozone layer (tODP) and the 
climate (tCO 2e)36;  
 The climate impact of ODS (Global Warming Potential (GWP)) is not conveyed.  
 Intra -EU trade in ODS by producers, destruction facilities and feedstock/process 
agent users;  
 Despite being used in significant quantities  (production volumes in metric tonnes 
exceed those of Annex I substances several times37), a number of substances with an 
ODP are currently not listed in the Regulation and therefore not monitored with a 
view to identify ing future risks.  
(ii) Drivers  
There are no requirements in the Regulation mandating reporting on the substances and 
parameters listed above.  
(iii)  How the problem will evolve  
Without addressing the monitoring gaps, the picture of ODS uses and emissions wou ld 
remain incomplete. This would in particular affect the appreciation of climate -relevant 
emissions and emerging issues that would not be monitored in support of on -going research 
regarding their impacts. Some of the relevant trade flows would  remain inco mpletely 
monitored  and there would be less control on illegal trade within the Union . The lack of intra -
EU data also makes reporting on production to the Protocol more difficult, as this  needs to be 
done at Member State level. This is e.g. an issue in case  an ODS is produced in one Member 
State , but used as feedstock or destroyed in another . 
2.1.4.  2.1.4.  Coherence and clarifications  
(i) Status quo of the issue  
The long experience in the implementation and enforcement of ODS legislation has led to a 
good integration of the Regulation within the EU environmental legal framework. However, 
as pointed out by the evaluation, some further coherence and clarity should b e achieved on 
the following issues:  
 Lack of coherence with the Montreal Protocol : Technological progress has allowed the 
tightening of  the international rules under the Montreal Protocol on destruction 
technologies and proc ess agent uses and their limits.   
 Lack of legal coherence with the more recent Regulation (EU) 182/2011 , which lays 
down the rules for the control of the Co mmission ’s exercise of  its implementing powers: 
                                                           
36 ODS have widely varying ODPs and GWPs, so that it is necessary to have emission values at substance level 
to determine effects on ozone layer and climate  
37 But produced quantities in tODP are significantly smaller than those of Annex I substances, since the 
unmonitored substances have rather low ODPs  
 
13 The Regulation needs to be aligned with that Regulation (where it refers to Directive 
1999/468/EC) and also needs to be aligned with the Treaty (where it refers to regulatory 
procedure with scrutiny)   
 Lack of coherence with customs legislation: Better coherence with the customs rules is 
relevant for preventing illegal trade in a m ore effective way. A 2020 operation by the 
World Custom Organisation called DEMETER VI, where a number of EU Member States 
participated, found illegal shipments involving 11 tonnes of ODS38. While this is not at the 
alleged level of illegal trade for fluorinated gases , custom officials have made the point 
that the role of customs in controlling imports is not sufficiently clear  in the Regulation 
which complicates enforcement. Special temporary custom procedures, such as transit, 
have been pinpointed as  areas where trade facilitation may be exploited for illegal 
activities. Many s takeholders have emphasised that  the ODS Regulation and the 
Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 ( F-gas39 Regulation)  should take similar approaches as 
they concern similar sectors and objectives (emission prevention). Currently the usefulness 
of the CERTE X/Single Window system is limited as relevant input data such as net mass 
is not provided with the customs declaratio n.  
 Currently it is difficult to judge if national penalties have a dissuasive effect  and non -
compliance with relevant measures may not be treated as a criminal offence. Business 
stakeholders report large discrepancies between rules in different Member Sta tes, and 
industry associations request more harmonised and dissuasive penalties to discourage 
illegal activities.40 Directive 2008/99/EC on the protection of the environment through 
criminal law establishes that the illegal  production, trade , placing on the  market or use of 
ozone -depleting substances is  a criminal offence. As it will be substantially amended, 
coherence is currently not ensured.   
 Differences wi th the F-gas Regulation : (Exempted)  ODS, in contrast to F -gases, can be 
placed on the market without a requirement to destroy or capture the strong greenhouse 
gas HFC -23, which is often a by -product during the manufacturing process.  
Finally, as indicated by the evaluation, there is also some  scope for simplification and 
clarifications of the text. As these are not believed to have measurable impacts, they form 
part of all policy options. They are listed in Annex 7.  
(ii) Drivers  
The following drivers are relevant:  
 The Regulation is not updated to b inding international rules as regards allowed destruction 
technologies and process agent uses and their limits.  
 The Regulation includes several references to the old ‘regulatory procedure with scrutiny’ 
for which no automatic alignment is envisaged by law . 
                                                           
38 DEMETER VII (2021) only discovered 101 kg of substances, but additionally 493 pieces of equipment 
controlle d by the Protocol  
39 “F-gases” = fluorinated greenhouse gases, as defined by Regulation (EU) No 517/2014  
40 This issue was also identified by F -gas and custom experts group that met several times between 2019 to 
2021 to discuss illegal HFC trade.  The Commiss ion financed the group under the The Customs 2020 
Programme . 
 
14  Some time limits relating to custom s procedures are not aligned and the obligations of 
custom authorities are not explicitly specified in the Regulation. A clear legal base for 
requiring the net mass to be specified in customs documents is lacking.  
 The Regulation specifies the need for proportionate and dissuasive penalties but does not 
mention criminal offence.  
 The Regulation does not mirror relevant obligations on producers in the F -gas Regulation 
as regards the destruction or capture of HFC -23 by -production.  
(iii)  How the problem will evolve  
With the current legal framework, the EU would not be able to align fully with international 
rules and could even risk non -compliance. Non -alignment with custom rules will prevent 
more efficient controls going forward and likely result in additional emissions. Similarly, 
non-alignment with EU rules on environmental crimes, taking into account developments on 
the review of the Environmental Crimes Directive, and a lack of harmonisation of penalty 
rules would prev ent coherent implementation across the Union.  Potential emissions may also 
arise from a non -alignment with the F -gas Regulation as it leaves some loopholes on 
producer obligations .41 
3. 3. WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 
3.1. 3.1. Legal basis  
The legal basis for taking action is Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union, in line with the objective to preserve, protect and improve the quality of the 
environment; protect human health; and to promote measures at international level to deal 
with clim ate change.  
3.2. 3.2. Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action  
The EU and the EU Member States, as parties to the Protocol, have a number of requirements 
to fulfil (see 1.2) at the international level. There are similar requirements in international 
trade agreement s that the EU has concluded. The EU is considered a regional economic 
integration organisation (REIO) under the Protocol, and therefore complies with these 
requirements at Union level (e.g. reporting, licensing system, consumption phase -out), which 
require s relevant legislation at the same level. Only for the Protocol’s ODS production phase -
out schedules is it the Member States42 that need to comply with this provision individually.   
A hypothetical implementation of these commitments under the Protocol at Me mber State 
level is very difficult to reconcile with the general principles of the EU internal market 
and the free movement of goods . The evaluation concluded that only a common and 
harmonised EU approach can effectively implement the Protocol’s obligations and respect 
internal market rules.  
                                                           
41 The F -gas Regulation is also currently being reviewed.  
42 Only a few Member States continue to have ODS production (Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy and 
The Netherlands)    
 
15 3.3. 3.3. Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action  
Compared to the counter -factual scenario where national s ystems for licensing 
import/exports, phase -outs, and reporting would need to be implemented, the EU level 
approach provides much higher efficiency for authorities and undertakings, in particular for 
companies operating in more than one EU Member State. By way of example, the trade and 
transfer of recovered, recycled and reclaimed ODS (Annex I)43 strongly benefits from the 
interconnected EU market and harmonised rules for cross -border movement of goods. As 
estimated by the evaluation, the needed additional me asures for national implementation of 
the Regulation compared to the current situation would increase the administrative effort by a 
factor larger than 18. Furthermore, Member States would likely implement different 
legislative approaches. Even though a fe w could choose to be more ambitious at the national 
level, the sum of national ODS legislation would likely be less ambitious than an overall EU -
wide approach, as confirmed by industry and authorities alike. Likewise, undertakings would 
need to ensure that  they comply with different requirements set by the countries where they 
operate. The EU added value is fully confirmed by the favourable opinion among 
stakeholders towards regulating ODS at EU level.  
4. 4. OBJECTIVES : WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVE D? 
4.1. 4.1. General (r eview) objectives  
The EU should take action and provide solutions in order to examine if more ambitious 
emission reductions in line with the Green Deal are possible. Furthermore, while it is 
paramount to have an ambitious EU policy in place to protect the ozone layer and co ntribute 
to fighting climate change as well as to ensure compliance rules under the Protocol (and 
bilateral trade agreements), this should be achieved in a more efficient, coherent and clear 
manner , while maintaining and/or improving controls. .  
4.2. 4.2. Speci fic (review) objectives  
Fit for the European Green Deal : 
A. Achieve a higher  level of additional emission redu ctions  
Fine -tuning the design of the Regulation : 
B. Improve  the efficiency of the Regulation while preserving the significant emission 
reductions achieved so far  
C. Ensure more comprehensive monitoring  
D. Improve coherence and clarifications  
                                                           
43 Very relevant today for some ODS, given that new production is prohibited at the global level while still 
required in critical applications (e.g. halons) and for effective destruction at end -of-life of ODS equipment . 
 
16 5. 5. WHAT ARE THE AVAILABL E POLICY OPTIONS ? 
5.1. 5.1. What is the baseline from which  options are assessed?  
The baseline, against which policy options are assessed, assumes that the current Regulation 
and implementing acts remain in place unchanged.  
5.1.1.  5.1.1.  Baseline for environmental impacts  
The main relevant environmental impacts are link ed to releases of ODS into the atmosphere, 
causing harmful damage to the ozone layer and the climate, due to their ODP and high GWP. 
The basis for estimating future emissions is the estimated developments of the parameters 
production, trade, use44 and stock s/banks, from which emissions can occur, in addition to the 
associated emission factors. An exhaustive discussion of methodology and assumptions made 
(e.g. Table A4.3) is given in Annex 4. Table A4.4 shows the modelled future development of 
the underlying parameters.  
Future overall ODS emissions are largely determined by the emissions from insulating foam 
banks (see Fig. 1), both in ozone (tODP) and climate (tCO2e) terms. Emissions will rise from 
current levels o f ca 6, 000 to  peak levels of  6,700 tODP (i.e. from 37 to 4 3 MtCO2e ) around 
2033 , and will only start to decrease after that, as the amounts of legacy material (i.e. ODS 
foams in old buildings) entering the waste stream each year will start to fall only after 2030 
(Fig. A6.1 in Annex 6). Still, e missions will still be  4,000 tODP ( 23 million tCO2e) in 2050. 
Emissions will continue for many years after, at slowly decreasing  levels, as the contribution 
of slow but sustained emissions from landfilled material, where the ODS was not destroyed, 
will be come relatively more important.  
Emissions from all other sources are two to three magnitudes lower, so their contribution to 
the overall emissions is very low (Table A4.4 in Annex 4). In the baseline, emissions from 
production and feedstock uses are largely sustained, with moderate decre ases expected for 
Annex I ODS only in the long run. Emissions from process agent uses will disappear in the 
long run as the remaining legacy plants using them will close (use by new installations is not 
permitted), and halon use will be  phased out by 2040 . This would also end related emissions 
as long as any remaining stocks are destroyed. Laboratory and analytical uses will continue 
unchanged, but emissions from these proc esses are minuscule (< 1 tODP).  
5.1.2.  5.1.2.  Baseline for economic impacts  
At this stage, t he Regulation no longer requir es any major shifts towards ODS alternatives (as 
this has been largely accomplished). Therefore the cost baseline for businesses, Member 
States and the Commission (plus EEA) are essentially limited to administrative costs. The re 
may, however , be some compliance costs for halon users to meet the remaining prohibition 
dates and for emission prevention measures. The cost data are primarily taken from the 
evaluation and  projected until 2050, taking into account the expected changes  to ODS market 
parameters (Table A4.4), where relevant, see tables A4.5 and A4.6 in Annex 4 for details on 
                                                           
44 I.e. use as feedstock, process agents , laboratory and analytical, critical halon applications  
 
17 cost drivers.45 Furthermore, the cost trajectories between 2020 and 2050 are split by type of 
stakeholder and by the relevant measures resulting in th ese costs, such as licen sing, quota 
allocations, monitoring, reporting, etc.  
For business, annual administrative costs of ca. €300.000 would decline only slightly 
until 2050 in the baseline scenario (an overall decline of less than 10% is forecasted; see 
table A4.7 in Annex 4). The two most important cost categories are licen sing and reporting 
requirements. The overall use of ODS, to which these obligations are linked, will decline 
very slowly over time. This means that fewer  businesses will need to provide  reporting and 
apply for licences. At the same time, those businesses that still do, will spend less time on 
these activities due to (slightly) lower ODS volumes (and a lower number of substances) to 
licen se and report. On the other hand, registration cost s for laboratories and compliance costs 
to business related to emission controls, following protocols on destruction and reclamation, 
as well as inspections are assumed to remain constant in the long run.  
The administrative costs for Member States would r emain the same, at very modest 
levels. These costs (< €40.000 p.a. see table A4.8 in Annex 4) are mainly linked to reporting. 
Member States also need to carry out inspections, custom controls and general enforcement 
matters (ca. 507 person days in total ann ually).  
The annual administrative costs at European level (Commission and EEA) would 
increase further until 2025, and decrease slightly thereafter.  Annual costs for the 
Commission would increase from ca. 788 person days to ca. 825 person days (see table A4.8 
in Annex 4). The main reason for the initial increase is rising personnel costs for the 
Commission related to the registration and licensing systems cau sed by more stringent 
requirements on data protection and security issues. Costs related to the day -to-day treatment 
of registration of laboratories would remain constant. Many other cost categories are 
expected to decline slightly over time, in line with the slowly declining use of ODS. Costs 
remain constant for general support topics such as ensuring compliance in MS, providing 
access to documents, outreach activities, advice to stakeholders etc. The costs to the EEA 
linked to the reporting systems are pr ojected to continue but with an increase in IT project 
management costs as noted above for the Commission.  
Effects of COVID -19. Targeted stakeholders representing the relevant types affected by the 
Regulation (see synopsis report, Annex 2) were routinely asked about the effects o f the 
pandemic on their business. Most respondents were not able to indicate concrete impacts of 
the COVID -19 pandemic or to provide estimations on how the crisis would affect the 
expected impacts of the policy options. This is con firmed by the most recent company 
reporting data for 2020 on production and trade which is within the expected range.46 
However, one feedstock user expected that dichloromethane (DCM), which is used in the 
pharmaceutical sector, would  be produced in increased amounts in the EU in the future, as 
the production of certain pharmaceuticals will be pulled from emerging markets back to 
Europe (relevant to option C5). One supplier of laboratories in the EU indicated that slightly 
                                                           
45 Inflation is not taken into account in the costs . For comparison impacts in real terms are more relevant . 
46 EEA. EU (ODS) data summary 2021. Preliminary findings (not published)  
 
18 fewer orders from customers had been  observed recently, while another pointed out that the 
simplifications considered for the ODS licensing system (i.e. option B1) would probably  
increase the resilience of their business. An aircraft manufacturer stated that the aerosp ace 
sector has been significantly impacted and indicated that the research of halon alternatives 
has therefore been delayed by around twelve months, according to internal estimations. This 
delay in R&D would in particular be relevant for finding alternativ es to the protection of 
normally unoccupied cargo compartments (see option B6). Most of the effects appear to be 
rather short term, linked to the general economic situation.  
5.1.3.  5.1.3.  Baseline for other impacts  
The remaining impacts, which are grouped under social impacts, include impacts on 
employment, research & development, and consumer prices. These impacts are not assessed 
quantitatively, due to the very small expected impact for the baseline scenario (e.g. see costs 
to business identified above) and often a lack of distinct quantitative data at these low levels. 
Future e mployment is mostly dependent on the production of ODS feedstocks, as these are by 
far the largest quantities still in use, and will depend upon general future trends in the 
(European -based) manufacture of chemicals and their added -value products . Employment in 
this sector will therefore also depend greatly on general economic development.  The steady 
progress on R&D and finding new alternative s of the past (in particular halons, process 
agents; less so for feedstock uses)47 is expected to continue but at a slower rate as the 
remaining ‘leftover uses ’ are the most difficult ones to replace.  The implementation of 
measure A.4 could potentially increase consumer prices for owners renovating or 
constructing a building. These additional costs compared to the overall costs of constructing 
or refurbishing and retail prices for new property are gene rally very small. As the foam 
recovery activities would be linked only to major renovations or new construction, vulnerable 
consumers making smaller upkeep renovations would not be affected.  
5.2. 5.2. Description of the policy options  
ODS is a long -standing pol icy area. On the basis of the evaluation  findings , the overall 
approach and main measures of the R egulation are not put in to question.  Given the EU`s 
international obligations and the need to avoid backsliding, the main rules, shown to be 
effective overall , must remain in place. They cannot be replaced by e.g. voluntary approaches  
or economic incentives . Compared to the past, i n EU ODS policy today there is a shift in the 
focus : Rather than phasing out entire chemical groups of substances that was needed in the 
past (e.g . CFCs, HCFCs), it is more about preserving the huge ozone - and climate -relevant 
emission savings that have been achieved in the past , and controlling the remaining uses 
in specialised areas . Therefore, the review will seek  to fine tune  the R egulation to today’s 
rema ining challenges, to maintain good control while using efficient measures .  
To achieve this, a series of feasible measures were identified  for each review objective and 
issue listed  in section 2 . The collected measures were to a large degree proposed by 
stakeholders , in particular the Member State authorities,  during the consulta tions on the 
                                                           
47 Compare findings  of the evaluation  
 
19 evaluation and the impact assessment. A number of measures were based on internal 
Commission experience of implementing this policy  as well a s suggestions by outside 
experts.  An overview of the link between the issues and the measures chosen is provide in 
Annex 10.   
As the Regulation is generally fit for purpose, many measures relating to the design of the 
Regulation are targeting rather small issues and the impacts or cost savings related to solving 
these issues are equally small. Nevertheless , it would be a missed opportunity to forgo a 
possible improvement. Furthermore, for some of the issues , the choice of measure to remedy 
the issue was sel f-evident. For others, several measures were considered and those that 
appeared infeasible or ineffective were discarded, see section 5.3 and Annex 9.  The selected 
measures are generally compatible with one another and not mutually exclusive. They a re 
grouped into three packages on the basis of their expected (abatement) costs (see Table 2):  
 Option 1  includes measures resulting in savings or very low costs only . It focuses 
mainly on simplifications and better coherence and clarifications  where these do not 
result in relevant costs, and  includes also one very cost -efficient measure to reduce 
emissions (foams recovery limited to the sandwich panel foams).  
 Option 2  includes all measures in Option 1 plus additional measures that are expected 
to generate some  costs , notably measures targeting emission reductions (e.g. foams 
recovery also from certain laminated panel ling) as well as more comprehensive 
monitoring and control.  
 Option 3  includes all measures including those with high (abatement) costs . 
In the foll owing sections all the retained individual measures are described in detail and the 
impacts of each measure is analysed, taking into account the feedback provided by 
stakeholders as regards the expected impacts of each measure. Subsequently , an overview of 
the impacts of all measures is provide in Table 3.  
 Table 2. The three policy options and the respective policy measures included  
Policy options  
Measures  Option 1  Option 2  Option 3  
A1 Make destruction mandatory for some types of foam banks  
((sandwich) panels and (laminated) boards, unless infeasible)  Panels only  Panels &  
boards  Panels &  
boards  
A2 Introduce a negative list for chemical production processes     
A3 Review prohibition dates for equipment containing or relying on 
halons     
A4 Prohibit the destruction of halons     
A5 Prohibit use of Annex II substances in cooling equipment     
B1 Require trader licenses     
B2 Monitoring of illegal goods     
B3 Special custom rules for ODS     
B4 Abolish registration for laboratories     
B5 Abolish annual quota allocation     
B6 Delay requirement for replacing halons in aircraft cargo 
compartments     
 
20 C1 Align reporting obligations for substances in Annex II to Annex I     
C2 Require reporting on emissions for ODS production and destruction 
of ODS     
C3 Add global warming potential (GWP) values to Annex I and II     
C4 Require reporting on sales and purchases of ODS within the EU for 
producers, destruction facilities and users.     
C5. Add DCM, PCE and BTP as substances to be reported      
D: All measures improving  coherence and clarity     
 
5.2.1.  5.2.1.  Review objective A: Achieve a higher level of additional 
emission reductions  
Almost all respondents in the open public consultation agree that there is a need for further 
reducing emissions from foams at their end of life. Conversely, for feedstock use processes 
where alternatives do not exist, almost all businesses (14 out of 15) are opposed to limiting 
these uses, whereas other stake holder groups were more open to consider this.  
A1. Require mandatory recovery and destruction of ODS from specific foam banks  
It will become  mandatory to recover /capture  and destroy ODS by incineration for certain 
types of foams found in  construction and d emolition waste . An approach based on economic 
incentives was not considered useful as this would likely exacerbate the current situation (see 
section 2.1.1.1) where separate collection of foams would only be undertaken in a few pro -
active Member States , as financial incentives in the waste sector and producer responsibility 
schemes are prerogatives  at national level . The Regulation should list the types of foam for 
which this is considered feasible at reasonable costs at the time of building renovation or 
demolition. The policy option are considering two ambition l evels: While Option 1 include s 
only metal -faced panels  (measure A1(a)) , whose separate collection is rather straightforward 
and where the economic business case is best due to the recovery of t he metal part , Option 2 
and 3 include laminated boards  (measure A1(b)) , where feasibility of recovery depends on 
the place of installation (see Annex 6). In cases where the installation (in floors, attached to 
concrete etc.) makes foam separation difficult , the burden of proving infeasibility would lie 
with the building owner and the contractor performing the works . If recovery is not done, 
they would need to keep evidence for up to 5 years why foam separation from other building 
materials was considered in feasible . Such evidence could be e.g. building audit 
documentation carried out before demolition.  
Member States would need to enforce this obligation. This effort may often be linked to other 
requirements in existing national legislation on renovation/dem olition works, waste policy 
and the need for separation of materials, in particular in light of objectives for a circular 
economy.  
A2. Introduce a negative list for chemical production processes where alternatives exist  
The use of ODS as feedstock will become prohibited in two types of processes: (i) the use of 
CTC to produce PCE, and (ii) the use of HCFC -22 to produce TFE. In both cases alternatives 
 
21 appear to be commercially available.48 This option could include that further processes would 
be adde d in the future via comitology procedure.  Chemical producers using these synthesis 
pathways would need to modify their production processes in order to use alternative 
processes without ODS. Member States would need to ensure compliance .  
A3. Move forward prohibition dates for equipment using halons  
Prohibitions for using halons will be moved forward from 2035 to 2030 for fire protection of 
(i) engine compartments on military ground vehicles and (ii) normally unoccupied engine 
spaces on military surface shi ps. The evaluation and stakeholder input indicate that 
retrofitting with ODS alternatives appears to be already feasible in these cases. This would 
place an obligation on the military to either replace or retrofit such halon equipment more 
quickly, which c ould result in significant, unforeseen costs. Member States would need to 
ensure compliance.  
A4. Prohibit the destruction of halons  
Destruction of halons w ill be prohibited, with certain exemptions e.g . in case the quality of 
the recovered halon is not sufficient to allow any reclamation and reuse. This would place 
obligations on operators using halon -equipment to ensure proper recovery and reuse. 
Undertakings may be required to keep records for five yea rs for any halons that are destroyed  
anyway , detailing the technical reasons for the destruction.  Member States would need to 
enforce this obligation, in particular to avoid venting by operators.  
A5. Prohibit the use of Annex II substances in new refrigera tion and air conditioning 
equipment  
It will be prohibited to place on the market Annex II ODS in cooling equipment. This would 
notably prevent the further use of trifluoroiodomethane (CF 3I) as a refrigerant (blend). 
Equipment manufacturers would need to st op using this substance as a part of refrigerant 
blends in their appliances. Member States would need to ensure compliance.  
5.2.2.  5.2.2.  Review objective B: Impr ove the efficiency of the Regulation 
while preserving the significant emission reductions achieved so  far  
Most  respondents in the open public consultation consider the simplification of the licen sing 
system in light of the Single Window as well as prevention of illegal activities to be (very) 
important. As regards the importance of simplifying registration for laboratory uses, all 
businesses (including two laboratory users) and most public authorit ies agree this is (very) 
important. Furthermore, all industry respondents and most public authorities find if (very) 
important to abolish the quota system. Aviation industry has highlighted the infeasibility of 
one halon prohibition which was confirmed by authorities.   
B1. Modernise the licensing system in view of the EU Single Window Environment for 
Customs (“Single Window”): Introduce trader licen ces for ODS bulk and equipment  
                                                           
48 Ramboll (2019). Support study for the evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 on substances that 
deplete the ozone layer. Final Report.  
 
22 The requirement to have an ODS import and export licence per shipment will be replaced by 
a requirement to have a periodic ODS licence for each trader stating the conditions under 
which the trader may import or export (trader licence). The Single Window will allow per 
shipment controls of imports and exports on the basis of data in the customs documents and 
an automatic cross -check with the Commission’s ODS licensing system. To complete the 
overview, and given the lower administrative burden of the automatic system, the substance 
listed in Annex IIA will be included in Annex I, with the only additional change being that 
licensing will also be required for this substance. This makes an application for ODS licen ces 
prior to the import/export and the (partly) manual approval of licences by the Commission 
prior to custom clearance obsolet e. This measure should only enter into force when the Single 
Window is in place in all Member States. The EC would need to adjust its database to allow 
for trader licen ces. Economic operators would need to only apply for relevant trader licen ces 
(once a ye ar or even less frequently).  
B2. Better monitoring of illegal goods  
To ensure better control at less resources, custom controls should increasingly rely on 
automatic controls (see B1 above). To enable these controls f or relevant customs procedures , 
the trader will be required to specify the 8 or 10 -digit TARIC49 code. This will allow an 
identification of the ODS (group) and thus enable better controls of ODS submitted to these 
procedures. The requirements for custom documents would need to be changed . The 
economic operators would need to provide the code any time such a procedure is launched. 
The existing requirement to present a declaration of critical use for reclaimed halons for 
obtaining a license for import will instead be required as a certifica te at the moment of 
import. Furthermore, it should be clarified that goods (including non -refillable cylinders) that 
may not be placed on the market in the EU should also be prohibited from physical entry into 
the customs territory of the Un ion. This measu re includes prohibiting the placing on the 
market of ODS (bulk and in products and equipment) online . Customs would identify such 
shipments as ODS -policy relevant and carry out risk -based controls to ensure the Regulation 
is enforced. Surveillance authorit ies should monitor goods offered online.  
B3. Special custom rules for ODS  
To be able to better identify illegal activities at lower administrative effort, r elevant custom s 
procedures will only be permitted for goods sent to particular destination custom o ffices.  This 
may affect the logistics of legitimate traders , but should not affect the volumes of trade . 
Member States would need to identify the customs offices that are equipped to handle ODS 
trade to ensure good control. Customs should control, using risk-based approaches, if the 
conditions are provided for such shipments.  
B4. Abolish the registration system for laboratories  
                                                           
49 TARIC = Integrated tariff of the EU  
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/calculation -customs -duties/what -is-common -customs -
tariff/taric_en  
 
23 The requirement for laboratories to register will be abolished. Instead, suppliers and 
purchasers should keep records with specif ic information on the quantities and specific uses 
for five years. This requirement will facilitate  the control  of improper use and  collect ion of 
information for identif ication of  e.g. progress on alternatives. Member States would have to 
ensure complian ce of the requirements of permitted and prohibited uses (Commission 
Regulation 291/2011). Shipment data collected via the Single Window could be checked 
automatically for any unusual amounts or import activities related to such intended uses 
Reporting would ensure further overview of production and use.  
B5. Abolish the annual quota allocation process  
The annual quota requirements for feedstock, process agents, halons for critical uses and 
laboratory and/or analytical uses will be abolished. Shipment dat a collected via the 
CERTEX/Single Window can be checked automatically for any unusual amounts or import 
activities related to such intended uses. Reporting will ensure  further overview of production 
and use.  
B6. Delay the requirement of using non -halon fi re protection for normally unoccupied 
cargo compartments in newly type certified aircraft  
The cut -off date from which it is no longer allowed to submit an application for type 
certification for an aircraft that uses halons in fire protection of unoccupied cargo 
compartments  will be moved from 2018 to 2024 to take into account that alternative solutions 
have not yet been successfully qualified and certified. Aircraft producers that submit an 
application for type certification will no longer have to provide t he relevant technical data to 
their Member State to justify requesting a Commission Decision allowing a derogation from 
the cut -off date. This timeline would align with rules in place by  the ICAO (International 
Civil Aviation Organization).  
5.2.3.  5.2.3.  Review objective C: Ensure more comprehensive monitoring  
All non -business stakeholder groups in the open public consultation place d high importance 
on additional reporting measures, whereas businesses were divided on this issue.  
C1. Require reporting on use as fe edstock, process agents and destruction also for new 
ODS (Annex II)  
The reporting requirements for new ODS will be aligned with those of ODS (Annex I) to give 
a better overview of the uses of the former. This will slightly extend the reporting scope for 
those companies that have not already been reporting such data voluntarily. The possibility is 
already enabled in the reporting system run be the EEA.  
C2. Require reporting on emissions at substance level for the production and 
destruction of ODS  
Producers a nd destruction facilities will be obliged to report their ODS emissions50, by 
substance. No changes to the reporting system run by the EEA will be needed.  
                                                           
50 Currently not a requirement  but often reported voluntarily . 
 
24 C3. Add global warming potential (GWP) values to increase awareness of the climate 
impacts of ODS  
The relevant GWP value for each ODS (Annex I and II) will be added. No additional 
requirement s for authorities or economic operators would arise from this change.  
C4. Require reporting on sales and purchase  of ODS (Annex I) also for producers, 
destruction fac ilities and feedstock and process agent users  
Reporting will be required on intra -EU trade to better monitor the supply chain of ODS  and 
facilitate compliance with reporting obligations under the Protocol .51,52 This will extend the 
reporting scope for those companies. The possibility is already enabled in the reporting 
system run b y the EEA.  
C5. Add new substances to Annex II B  
Three substances with an ODP, which could become relevant53, will be added to Annex II B 
(monitoring), namely 2 -BTP54, dichloromethane (DCM), and perchloroethylene (PCE), so 
that their trade and use can be monitored. 2 -BTP is likely to be produced in larger quantities 
in the future as an alternative to halons. PCE is used in high volumes i n the EU (between 
100.000 – 1.000.000 metric tonnes according to REACH registration). DCM is of concern as 
it accounts for the majority of the rise in total chlorine in the atmosphere from very -short 
lived substances (VSLS).55 From the European Pollutant Re lease and Transfer Register  (E-
PRTR )56 data it appears that emissions of DCM may be 31 tODP per year.57 This will extend 
the reporting scope for affected companies. Adding the three substances requires only minor 
changes to the EEA’s reporting system.  
5.2.4.  5.2.4.  Review objective D : Improve  coherence  
Many of the suggestions to ensure better coherence and clarification have been provided by 
stakeholders in the context of the evaluation and in the context of the consultation activities 
for this review. Two thirds of  the respondents to the open public consultation f ound  it (very) 
important to ensure a clearer and more accessible legal text of the Regulation.  
Alignment with the Montreal Protocol  
                                                           
51 Currently such data is only required from importers and exporters  
52 For reporting on production at Member State level, also intra -EU trade is relevant . Reporting is only needed 
for Annex I substances  
53 There are a number of other  substances with an  ODP that are currently also not monitored. Some of these 
are emitted from other (natural) sources or sectors (e.g. from agriculture) that the Regulation is ill suited to 
address. For others, their contribution to endangering the ozone layer or the climate is rather small as the 
quantities in use are small or their ODP/GWP is min imal. Unsaturated HCFCs (or HCFOs) are not considered 
here since this substance group is included for monitoring under the F -gas Regulation . 
54 2-bromo -3,3,3 -trifluoroprop -1-ene 
55 According to the Protocol’s Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP), emissions of ant hropogenic VSLS chlorine affects 
stratospheric ozone. A sustained future increase in atmospheric concentrations of DCM would therefore slow 
the recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole.  
56 Emission Pollutant Release and Transfer Register. https://prtr.eea.europa.eu/#/home   
57 This number is similar to total known Annex I feedstock emissions.  
 
25 D1. Update Annex VII on destruction technologies on the basis of Decision XXX/6 of the 
Protocol.  
The Regulation needs to be updated in line with international requirements , updating  the list 
of acceptable destruction technologies for different ODS groups. This affects destruction 
companies and requires oversight by authorities.  All approved technologies by Protocol 
parties will be allowed, while the Commission retains an empowerment to regulate otherwise.  
D2. Adjust process agent use and emission limits on basis of the Decision XXXI/6 of the 
Protocol.  
The Regulation needs to be u pdated in line with international requirements , further restricting 
the list of uses where ODS can be employed as process agents and related maximum limits . 
Actual use and emissions process agent uses are already in line with these new limits.  
Alignment wi th comitology rules  
D3. Adjust the Regulation to new rules on comitology and delegated acts  
The Regulation should be aligned with the new comitology rules envisaged under Regulation 
(EU) 182/2011. The Regulation still includes references to the possibility to update and adopt 
changes to the Regulation by using the outdated ‘regulatory procedure w ith scrutiny’. It 
remains important that the Regulation empowers the Commission, where appropriate under 
Article 290 of the TFEU to adjust or complement the rules of the Regulation quickly, taking 
into account international developments and/or to account f or (lack of) progress on 
alternatives.  
Alignment with customs law terminology and procedures  
D4.  Require the addition of  net mass (and operator’s ID) to customs declaration (in 
view of the EU Single Window Environment for Customs)  
This would allow full f unctionality of the Single Window by allowing for automatic quantity 
management of imported ODS and two-way identification of the economic operator. It 
requires the importer to provide this information in the customs documents.  
D5.  Remove Annex IV (CN codes)  
As CN codes are adjustable in the TARIC code, this annex needs to be updated frequently to 
avoid being outdated. Thus removing the Annex will prevent inconsistencies and unnecessary 
procedures to change the Regulation.  
D6.  Clearly spell out obligations of customs and economic operators  
The role of customs is clarified by naming the customs procedures subjected to envisaged 
measures,  the existence of certificates to be checked, as well as their content on a risk basis. 
Customs should  confiscat e the illegal goods and dispose of them as appropriate  and re -export 
should not be allowed . These measures will facilitate a more uniform enforcement by 
customs and competent authorities.  
Alignment with Directive 2008/99/EC (Environmental crimes directive)  
 
26 D7. Penalties related to the protection of the environment  
This measure is making adjustments on the current Article 29 (penalties) taking into account 
that Directive 2008/99/EC on the protection of the environment  through criminal law is being 
reviewed at the same time as the Regulation.  The Commission’s proposal was adopted 
recently.58 
Alignment with Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 (F -gas Regulation)  
D8. Prohibit the placing on the market of ODS (Annex I & II) unless producers or 
importers provide evidence t hat trifluoromethane (HFC -23) produced as a by -product 
during the manufacturing process is in line with best available techniques  
The F -gas Regulation requires that highly climate warming HFC -23 emissions must be 
prevented during  the production of F -gases that are being placed on the market. For 
consistency , a similar requirement should apply to ODS imported or produced in the EU. 
This obligation is in all likelihood already complied with by all EU producers and would 
mainly hold imported ODS up to the same standard. The need to control this can be flagged 
in the TARIC code and it is not expected that it will be necessary to substantially increase 
enforcement activities for Member States.  
In addition, a number of additional clarifi cations are considered (see Annex 7).  
5.3. 5.3. Measures  discarded at an early stage  
During the stakeholder consultation exercise, a number of additional measures were 
proposed. Some of these were screened out early on due to a lack of feasibility (either of a 
technical, legal, enforcement, effectiveness and efficiency or general nature ). These 
options are summarised in Annex 9.  
6. 6. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE MEASURES IN T HE POLICY OPTIONS ? 
6.1. 6.1. Achieve a higher level of additional emission  reductions  
A1. Require mandatory recovery and destruction of ODS from some foam banks  
The environmental benefit of this measure is very high, in particular in climate terms, 
due to the high GWP of the ODS used in these foams.  This option is supported by both 
authorities and businesses consulted. Recycling experts consider that recovery and 
destruction is feasible today  for some foam banks, e.g. metal -faced panels59 and, to some 
extent  for laminated boards, depending on where these have been installed60. These foams are 
in principal recoverable for destruction if separated during renovation or demolition of 
buildings. On the other hand, a separate collection of block foams and spray foams would be 
very difficult to achieve. A full recovery of metal -faced panels would save up to 18,200 
                                                           
58  COM(2021) 851  
59 The business case for metal -faced panels is more favourable as the metal  can be recovered and sold.  
60 Boards from built -up systems or cavity structure are in principal recoverable, while floor insulation boards 
are not (See Annex 6 for details).  
 
27 tODP or 88 million tCO2e until 2050, which is ca 14% of all ODS in foams reaching end -of-
life (in CO2e) in that period ( Option  1: measure A1(a) ). If, in addition, 25% of foams from 
laminated panels in built -up systems and cavity structures61 are recovered ( Option  2 and 3 : 
measure A1(b) ), this would save an additional 14,000 tODP or 91 million tCO2e until 205062, 
which is 28% of all ODS in foams reaching end -of-life (in CO2e) in that period . The success 
rate will ultimately depend on the enforcement of the requirements and on the synergy with 
other relevant legislation prescribing separation  and recovery of construction and demolition  
materials. There are clear synergies with the Waste Framewo rk Directive (WFD)  that set a 
2020 M ember States target of 70% preparation of construction and demolition wastes for re -
use, recycling and recovery. The WFD also promotes waste prevention through improving 
planning and logistics on construction sites and s elective demolition and sorting at source.  
The costs appear proportionate in climate terms and are distributed over many years 
and a large number of building owners and developers.  Based on stakeholder interviews it 
seems that the technical and economic feasibility of recovery has improved since  the situation 
10 years ago. Businesses indicated that a large fraction of the costs are labour costs  due to the 
work involved in the  collec tion an d separation of construction and demolition wastes , rather 
than transport or destruction costs . Member States have very different legislative and 
technical approaches to the demolition of buildings and requirements to recover, separate, 
treat etc. d ifferent components of construction and demolition wastes . Where such legislation 
exists, a separate recovery of foams would be facilitated by these requirements and additional 
costs would be rather low.  It is very difficult to set an average recovery cost  for the EU as a 
whole by material type due to the cost dependency on country specifics (e.g. country waste 
regulations). In two case studies  from A ustria and the Netherlands63, recovery costs for 
panels and boards were determined as €1050 -1200/t raw materi al. In addition, incineration 
costs may be up to €2500 -3500/t. Abatement costs based on these two case studies indicate 
that total abatement costs for the two scenarios would be roug hly 450 million € for Option 
A1(a) , and an addition al 1.53 billion € for O ption A1(b) , which would in turn represent 
abatement costs of 25,000 €/tODP (A1a ) and 87,000 -132,000 €/tODP (2). In climate terms, 
this translates into abatement costs of 5.1 €/tCO2e  (A1b ) and 15.0-18.4 €/tCO2e  (2), 
                                                           
61 Conservative estimate of which laminated boards are feasible to recover. This is because e.g. floor -installe d 
boards will not be included, building audits may prove infeasibility of separation and there may be emission 
losses due to broken/damaged boards during separation.   
62 Total savings from option  2 is almost corresponding to the total greenhouse gas emissio ns (UNFCCC)  in the 
Netherlands in 201 9 (181 million tCO2e)  
63 In the NL example, the data obtained considers full recycling of ODS panels including prevention of 
emissions following an interview with an innovative recycling company. This example is for a regulatory 
environment where segregation and recovery is already mandated . In A T, the interviews with established 
waste management companies resulted in data for a business case on recovering and incinerating the panels 
to prevent emissions.  In AT transpor t costs are higher, but the major driver of costs are the local incineration 
costs for hazardous wastes. A similar case of high incineration costs was found for SE. Conversely, the latter 
costs (but also landfilling costs) are usually cheaper in countries with less prescriptive waste regulations (e.g. 
BG).  
 
28 respecti vely.64 These moderate abatement costs in terms of CO2 are achieved due to the 
strong climate -warming effects of the gases used in the foams, but may be higher in some 
Member States.  Reliable  cost estimates for  all Member States , especially those where waste 
separation methods were less established , were difficult to obtain65. The data  for A ustria and 
the Netherlands , while being only from two countries, does still provide a useful overview as 
they present two different “business cases” for proper management of ODS containing 
panels. In order to approximate how high costs could likely get in other cases, costs for 
asbestos recovery  from buildings  was also considered as a n absolute  worst -case cost 
approximation. These proxy costs66 relate  to the effort required for asbestos separation, 
transport and incineration and were determined to be € 228 per tCO 2e. Given the costly  
worker protection measures required for asbestos, which are not needed for ODS foams, real 
costs for foam treatment would be lower and therefore well below costs considered 
proportionate as abatement costs to reach carbon neutrality by 2050 .67 Finally, many 
countries for which costs on foam separation are not available, such as Eastern countries, 
have a relatively low share of the ODS foams bank as their use was not as widespread as in 
Northern and Western Europe.  
Some authorities raised conce rns regarding costs  of this measure . The costs would in all 
likelihood  be borne by building owners  undertaking substantial overhaul or refurbishment 
activit ies, as demolition/renovation contractors are expected to pass these on. Thus  they are 
distributed o ver a large number of persons and the additional costs compared to the overall 
costs of demolishing or refurbishing the building would tend to be rather small . Real estate 
prices are not expected to be affected by the requirement. As for small, vulnerable 
consumers, replacement of foams is not usually linked to necessary maintenance or 
emergency reparations.  
This measure is expected to spur innovation and R&D on demolition, reclamation and 
recycling technologies, according to the experts consulted. This would in turn yield better and 
cheaper ways of ensuring recovery and support the aims of a circular economy. The measure 
may create some additional need for tra ining specialised personnel in the relevant companies, 
which are often SMEs. On the other hand , as a result , there may be positive effects on 
employment  due to the labour -intensiveness of the decommissioning process and the need 
for more treatment capacity  for these types of wastes. Using the current revenue -to-employee 
ratios by a typical recycling plant treating foams in fridges, this could be extrapolated to 215 
FTEs for scenario 1, and close to 2400 FTEs for scenario 2. Positive knock -on effects on the 
efficiency of refrigerator recycling from these activities is also expected.  
                                                           
64 This numbers are slightly lower than what SKM  Enviros  (2012) estimated in 2012 , i.e.  ca. €25/tCO2 for metal -
faced panels (scenario 1) and €50/tCO2 for laminated boards (additional part of scenario 2)  for AU, ES, CZ, CY 
and UK.  
65 Recent r elevant data was available for AU, DE, NL, SE and, for comparison, UK; little information could be 
found for BG, CZ, CY, ES, FR, and RO.  
66 Assuming asbestos panels would contain 220g of CFC -11 (similar to foam panels) . Prices for asbestos were 
obtained for NL, AU, F, ES and BG. Price ranges in these countries were relatively similar and varied from 25 – 
153 €/m2 of panel.  
67 To reach climate neutrality, economy -wide costs are  modelled as ca. € 390 /tCO2e  abated  
 
29 A2. Introduce a negative list for chemical production processes where alternatives exist  
The environmental benefits of this measure are uncertain . While the identified processes 
where alternatives appear to be available  represent 38% of all ODS used for feedstock in the 
EU in metric tonnes, they represent only 1.6% of total feedstock emissions in ODP, 
according to data reported by industry. The yearly savings possible are therefor e below 1 
tODP (or less than 10,000 tCO2e). In addition, there may, according to a number of industry 
stakeholders, be (i) higher energy costs of alternative production systems (e.g. due to higher 
temperature processes for the alternative production of TFE ), (ii) an increased risk of other 
greenhouse gases such as HFC -23 being emitted and a less efficient process resulting in 
unwanted by -products (TFE production), and (iii) less efficient use of an existing by -product 
from other processes (CTC) which would have no other use and require incineration (PCE 
production), which all result in negative environmental impacts. Accordingly, businesses 
expressed strong concerns on the technical and economic feasibility of the alternative 
pathways. Finally, if negative l isting of these processes leads to the relocation of chemical 
production facilities outside the EU, any emissions benefits may not be realised at all, as the 
emission controls at non -EU facilities are frequently lower.  
The measure could result in very sig nificant economic costs  for the companies involved  
and negative effects on employment. By way of example, a major TFE producer68 claims 
that an annual €500 million value -added production line is entirely dependent on the pathway 
using HCFC -22 involving empl oyment for 1600 persons. A change to a different process 
would involve “hundreds of million €” of investment, so that it is likely that production of 
TFE would be moved outside of the EU instead of the company investing in alternative 
processes. Stakeholde rs pointed out that relocation outside of the EU would also lead to a loss 
of jobs in industries that are relevant in terms of added -value and employment.  As regards 
PCE production69, an offshoring of production as a result of the policy measures appears less 
likely, but additional costs for producers would arise from having to incinerat e, rather than 
consume CTC from by -production, and for having to purify the chloromethane flow. Member 
States would incur some additional costs for inspections. Industry st akeholders suggested 
instead to consider more cost -effective policy options for this sector such as setting emission 
limits under the IED.  The latter may require additional measures to reduce emission losses to 
stay within the limits according to best prac tices, but would not require scrapping of the 
whole production line as would a prohibition of use.  
A3. Move forward prohibition dates for equipment using halons  
The measure may achieve some emission savings.  The emissions of critical use halons 
where a sui table alternative is available for retrofit of equipment are estimated at 6.9 ODPt in 
2030. This would theoretically provide total savings of ca. 35 tODP by bringing forward  the 
prohibitions by 5 years (or roughly 44,000 tCO2e for the whole period), but it  is likely that 
the military users concerned will gradually retrofit or replace the equipment in advance of the 
2035 ‘end date’ following their regular replacement schedules, so that real savings are likely 
                                                           
68 There are in total four companies reporting the use of this process in the EU.  
69 Two companies are reporting the use of this process in the EU.  
 
30 to be lower. While some businesses and authoritie s agreed that this option may lead to 
emissions savings, an expert on the use of halons in military applications and member of 
HTOC indicated that the quantities in the halon bank as well as emissions are low compared 
to other relevant ODS emission sources . 
High economic impacts for the military are likely.  Authorities pointed out the potentially 
high costs for the military to switch from halons and highlighted the importance of halons for 
existing defence material and maintenance contracts. If the Member State is simply 
advancing the retrofitting of existing equipment, it could simply be a matter of the timing of 
the costs, while the overall the costs in fact stay the same. However, if the intention is to 
scrap the vehicle or ship between 203 0 and 2035, additional costs  would be involved  to either 
retrofit the equipment before 2030 or to advance the scrapping to before 2030. It has not been 
possible to get information from Member States that would allow an estimation of such 
additional costs. However, to provide an indication of the magnitude on the basis of 
information received from one Member State70, the total expense for retrofitting fire 
protection systems for all their current military vehicles and ships with halons could be in the 
order o f EUR 15 million for vehicles and EUR 0.5 million for ships. Assuming that other 
Member State s are in a similar situation and assuming that only a share of their total fleet 
with halons would undergo additional retrofitting, possible costs for the addition al retrofitting 
could be at least in the tens of million s of euros in total71. Abatement costs were determined 
as €1,265,000/tODP or €203/tCO2e. In addition to this , higher depreciation costs related to 
early scrapping  must be considered . One competent auth ority believed that this option could 
have negative impacts on the capabilities of defence forces and the safety of soldiers as a 
result.  
A4. Prohibit the destruction of halons  
A positive environmental impact will be  achieved  from the avoidance of new production of 
halons in the future .72 Due to the continuing demand for critical uses at global level , this is 
unlikely to  be guaranteed otherwise. Allowing  production in the future would lead to 
additional emissions.73 The EU annua l demand is currently between 30 –40 metric tonnes, 
which would need to be replenished if stocks expire. Additional annual emissions linked to 
these quantities from production and use could be around 21 tODP or close to 15,000 
tCO2e.74 Further demand exists in many other countries in the world, which would need to be 
addressed in case of a global shortage, and which is likely to have much more important 
environmental impacts. By avoiding restarting  production of halons, more efforts to prevent 
leaks from equipment globally is likely  as well as an increased use of alternatives , which 
                                                           
70 Despite the efforts made by the external experts, data on costs for the military were  very difficult to obtain  
71 Given that the situation for Member States is in reality very different, actual costs are very hard to 
determine and this estimation can only give an idea of the magnitude to be expected.  
72 Currently not allowed under the Protocol.  
73 The exact amounts ar e difficult to predict as it depends on many factors including the actions of other major 
economies, the development of the aviation sector and any future international rules including under the 
Protocol. It is therefore not possible to give an abatement c ost for this measure given these uncertainties.  
74 This assumes 0.02 % emissions from new production and 0.5%  emissions from use of these quantities (see 
Table A4.2 in Annex 4 ) 
 
31 would add to the benefits. Good enforcement is needed to prevent a perverse incentive for 
owners of halon stock to ven t the gases rather than recover them as a result of th is policy 
option.  
The measure could result in some additional costs to owners of halon stocks  when 
reclamation, transport and sale is more expensive than the cost of destruction. Generally, 
there could be a good business case due to the high re-sale value of the gas after 
reclamation75, which could  go up in the future due to the expected increasing scarcity of 
stocks. This changes when halons need to be transported long distance to reclamation 
facilities,  in particular across borders, as they are treated as hazardous waste.76 The amounts 
recovered may in this case be too small to allow stock owners to fully recover their costs 
under current market conditions. Thus , depending on the circumstances, the option  will either 
result in benefits or minor costs for businesses. Companies w ill also incur  minor 
administrative expenses as they need to keep records on halon recovery and treatment. Since 
there will continue to be demand for halons  in the future , their re -use will become more 
economically favourable. Some Member State s have introduced legislation to address this 
issue such as national halon banks, but some also expressed concern on potential cost 
increases due to a need for additional enforcement and checks.  
A5. Prohibit the use of Annex II substances in refrigeration and air conditioning 
equipment  
The environmental benefit of this policy option is uncertain.  The ODP of CF 3I is rather 
low (0.01 -0.02) and its use in refrigerant blends in cooling equipment is very limited so far. 
Any potential ozone -relevant emission savings from disallowing the (future) use of this 
substance in refrigerant blends would need to be examined in light of reducing the choice and 
availability of refrigerants that are more climate -friendly than the highly warming HFCs that 
they aim to replace, with potentially much more substantial amounts of climate -relevant 
emissions to be saved.77 In particular, adding small amounts of CF 3I reduces the flammability 
of low GWP refrigerant blends, allo wing them to be used more easily as alternatives in 
applications where this may be required. A number of different stakeholders stressed the 
importance of CF 3I as an HFC alternative.  
The economic impacts of this policy option are difficult to assess.  Given the rapid 
development of the cooling market and the number of new refrigerant choices  available  since 
2014 as result of the F -gas Regulation, it is very difficult to speculate at this moment how 
much any blend using CF 3I will in the future be adopte d by equipment manufacturers and 
end-users, and thus be a suitable and cost -effective alternative.  For the same reason, 
determining an abatement cost is not feasible.  There would be a negative impact for some 
                                                           
75 The destruction of halons costs between €2 –3.5 per kg. The market price of halo n 1301 and 2402 are ca 100 
EUR and 200 EUR per kg, respectively, but could double up to 2025/2030. Reclamation costs of halons are 
estimated at EUR 4 per kg once the gas is at the facility.  
76 Shipment costs of €1070 -1250 to reclamation site based on estim ations by Member State experts . 
77 Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 (F -gas Regulation) is strongly driving the replacement of high GWP HFCs in the 
cooling sector, in order to reduce direct emissions of highly warming greenhouse gases  (HFCs) .   
 
32 chemical producers that invested in using CF3I to make their HFC alternatives marketable 
and safe, as mentioned by authorities, industry and other stakeholders alike.  
6.2. 6.2. Improve the efficiency of the Ozone Regulation while preserving the 
significant emission reductions achieved so far  
The following measures have been conceived in order to maintain (and in some cases 
improve) controls at lower costs. Even though these efficiency gains are the main rationale, 
there are some environmental gains to be expected for these measures from improved 
oversight, such as regards the control of illegal trade, but these  are difficult to quantify.  
B1. Modernise the licensing system in view of the EU Single Window Environment for 
Customs: Introduce trader licenses for ODS bulk and equipment  
This measure is expected to  lower administrative cost s for businesses  applying for longer 
term trade licences (import/export) instead of pre -approved licences at shipment level , 
including for SMEs . Businesses indicated that such a change would lead to a  reduction in 
person hours of between 13% to 80% 78 and could save 163 -395 days overall (€49,000 -
119.000).79 Member States will save resources mostly due to the use of the Single Window 
itself irrespective of trader or shipment licenses, due to more efficient and automatic custom s 
treatm ent procedures. This time saving is estimated at 30 to 45 minutes per shipment (EC, 
2020)80. In the open public consultation, many respondents placed high importance on the 
simplification of the licen sing system in view of the EU Single Window environment f or 
Customs. Industry stakeholders explained that the current system is overly bureaucratic, 
requir ing significant paperwork and time for each individual shipment of ODS.  
For the European Commission, licen sing costs will go down  as the number of licences 
goes down. Assuming the number of per -shipment licences is reduce d from 1,859 in 2019 to 
275 under the Single Window environment (which is an average of three trader licences per 
company in 2019, and a reduction of 85%), costs could drop to less than 20% of  the baseline 
by 2025. In terms of number of days, this would save the EC 95 person -days per year, from a 
total of 132 days per year spent in the baseline  scenario . There are , however,  one-off costs for 
changing the IT system to accommodate for trader lice nses.  
The measure will, in combination with the Single Window, allow for a complete storing of 
shipment data (since this is done automatically and no dependency on custom closing 
licenses as currently the case) and the possibility for follow -up of any susp icious activities, 
and thus would increase the controls on illegal trade. A number of authorities, including 
customs, supported the measure, but pointed to the fact that the EU -wide rollout of the Single 
Window will not be immediate, meaning the current sy stem would need to be maintained 
                                                           
78 Based on the response of five companies  
79 Data from the evaluation, based on 13 respondents, yields total costs of the existing system as 309 days 
(2076 yearly licenses * 1.1 hours per license / 7.4 working hours per day, This confirms the magnitude of the 
administrative burden that may to a larg e degree be saved.  
80 European Commission. SWD IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a 
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Union Single Window 
Environment for Customs Proposal [..].  
https://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CONSIL:ST_12529_2020_ADD_3&from=EN  
 
33 until then. Some authorities expressed doubts on the achievable environmental benefits, as 
they consider that the current licensing system is working well.  
B2. Better monitoring of illegal goods  
This measure allows better control over illegal activities but leads  to small 
administrative costs for the importer , as the 8/10 -digit TARIC code would need to be 
specified in the customs declaration for relevant custom procedures , which is not mandatory 
so far. There are indication s that these procedures are exploited for illegal activities as recent 
custom seizures indicate, but the overall extent is not known. Customs would incur costs due 
to carrying out controls on a risk basis , but the automatic controls via CERTEX/Single 
Windo w should make such controls more efficient . Stakeholders generally supported the 
extension of control to relevant customs procedures. A few authorities warned that this could 
increase the administrative burden on them.  
B3. Special custom s rules for ODS  
This measure allows better control over illegal activities at moderate costs to importers.  
For traders, logistics and/or admin istrative  costs may increase due to restrictions as to  which 
custom s offices can be used.  However this is expected to be a transitory issue as frequent 
traders would adapt to these new rules quickly.  Support was expressed by industry and some 
Member State s for limiting the use of special procedures to certain custom offices equipped 
to handle ODS. The possibility in the transit procedure to legally change the destination 
custom s office may limit the controls over that procedure. Furthermore, consistency of 
custom s rules with the F -gas Regulation81 is important for many stakeholders . Customs 
woul d incur costs due to controls on a risk basis. Customs authorities interviewed indicated 
that the control of ODS should be rather strict . If well implemented, the additional 
administrative burden would likely be low, but vary depending on the volume of illicit 
trafficking.  
B4. Abolish the registration system for laboratories  
This measure will result in cost savings for companies as it will  decrease the 
administrative burden on the 2,211 laboratories that registered in 2020 .82 The total cost 
avoided each year would be around €50,000  (see evaluation) . Laboratories and other entities 
that will be impacted by this measure are often SMEs. These savings are generally welcomed 
by stakeholders. One industry representative said in the stakeholder workshop that the current 
system is excessive compared to the quantities covered. Requesting instead 5 -year record 
keeping will slightly reduce the savings, but laboratories should already be keep ing track 
currently of substance acquisition, an d this would therefore only entail ensuring that this 
information is not deleted. Some ODS suppliers expressed concern that some of these costs 
may be shifted to them for ensuring ODS are not misused for other prohibited purposes. 
There are savings for the  European Commission amounting to 72 days per year of processing 
laboratory registrations and another 27 person days per year related to the development and 
                                                           
81 Also currently under review . 
82 In addition to others that may not be complying with the obligation . 
 
34 maintenance of the related IT system. Member States may have some enforcement costs, but 
as the qua ntities and risks are low in this case, such action is expected to be very light. Some 
authorities also feared that there may be less overview and control over this ODS use in the 
future.  Generally however the lack of registration should not result in addi tional emissions 
given the small amounts of ODS involved and the control of trade by e.g. monitoring and 
licensing.  
B5. Abolish the annual quota allocation process  
This measure will result in cost savings for companies and authorities.  This modification 
will decrease administrative burden on businesses  including SMEs , saving them €11,000 per 
year with respect to the baseline. This does not include additional costs saved where the 
import quota application turned out to be too low and the  company had to buy ODS on the 
EU market at high purchase prices in case of requiring bulk ODS at short notice without 
having applied for quota. While businesses were  in favour of abolishing quota allocations, 
authorities had mixed views on its feasibility , as some of them were concerned that the 
system would not effectively control the quantities and application types. While Member 
States already have low costs, the European Commission would achieve savings of 60 person 
days per year related to the allocat ion of quotas.  No additional emissions are expected as the 
necessary control is achi eved through e.g. monitoring and licensing.  
B6. Delay the requirement of using non -halon fire protection for normally unoccupied 
cargo compartments in newly type certified aircraft  
This measure will result in cost savings for companies and authorities. Authorities and 
businesses alike highlighted positive economic impacts from removing the need to request 
corresponding derogations. Without this measure, aviation companies wo uld need to ask for 
case-by-case derogations due to the current infeasibility to meet the 2018 prohibition. 3 to 4 
derogation requests could be submitted to the European Commission until 2024 from 
Member States on behalf of operators of airplanes having su ch compartments, without the 
deadline change. These companies could therefore avoid the costs linked to preparing the 
case by providing all the relevant technical data (estimated to be at least 30 person days per 
derogation depending upon complexity). The concerned Member State  would avoid costs for 
preparing the derogation request to the Commission (15 -30 person days per derogation). 
Likewise, the Commission would not incur administrative costs for treating, issuing and 
monitoring such derogations (40 person days per derogation per year83). In total, costs 
avoided could be 120 person days for both the aviation industry and Member State  
authorities, and up to 320 person days84 for the European Commission. As mentioned by 
some businesses, no environmental i mpacts are expected as there are currently no suitable 
alternatives, meaning the use of halons will have to continue, either by derogations or by 
delaying the deadline. No additional emissions are expected, as the delay of the deadline is 
                                                           
83 Based on data from evaluation (322 days for 8 derogations in p eriod 2010 -2017)  
84 Treatment of 4 derogations and their monitoring for 2 years (The Regulation could be applying from 2023 
and derogations would therefore be avoided until 31 December 2024, i.e. for two years)  
 
35 due to the fact t hat no technical options exist, so the use (and any potential future emissions) 
cannot be avoided at this time.  
6.3. 6.3. Ensure more comprehensive monitoring  
The rationale for these measures is to have a better understanding and overview of remaining 
ODS -related trade and use, for authorities, stakeholders and the public. In enabling better 
controls and early warning on any worrying trends, there is an inherent environmental 
benefit to all these measures , which is however difficult to quantif y. 
C1. Require reporting on use as feedstock, process agents and destruction also for 
new ODS (Annex II)  
Stakeholders were rather confident that the additional costs for this requirement are 
rather low.  Concerned stakeholders acknowledged that the data are , for the most part, 
already collected today (voluntarily) and could be reported without noteworthy increases in 
administrative costs. The benefit of this measure is a much better understanding of the use of 
those gases in the chemical industry, as stated by some authorities. The affected stakeholders 
are existing reporting companies, especially feedstock users, and additional administrative 
burden on businesses is estimated as being up to €5,500 per year for all undertakings 
combined. Annex es I and II data reporting requirements already require the same type of 
primary data collection, so the required data by the measure is often already available and 
does not need a separate collection. In addition, the feedstock produced is often also used by 
another part of the company conglomerate, which means that in these case s additional 
reporting on use is minimal. This policy measure has no impact on costs for the reporting 
system run by the EEA, since the additional reporting parameters  are already included in the 
IT system.   
C2. Require reporting on emissions at substance level for the production and 
destruction of ODS  
This measure is expected to slightly increase the administrative burden for some of the 
affected businesses. Two busine sses indicated higher costs corresponding to 1 -2 and 1 -5 
additional working days per year, whilst one business even estimated no increase in costs 
because of similar information already collected for the IED and the E -PRTR. One Business 
representative stat ed in the stakeholder workshop that the reporting focus should be on 
monitoring emissions rather than quantities used as currently the case. Producers account for  
approximately 50% of entities who report on ODS. This measure implies that the reporting 
costs go up by up to €20,000 per year for all undertakings in total (based on a 2025 baseline). 
These additional costs are not expected to change over time if production of ODS stays 
stable. Some companies may already collect such data as was the case for 2 out of 4 
companies interviewed, meaning this measure would not increase their costs. No additional 
costs are expected for the EEA reporting system, as it is already equipped to handle emissions 
reporting by producers and destruction facilities on a voluntary basis today. Given the 
relevance of knowing the emissions of these highly w arming gases more accurately and 
 
36 comprehensively than obtained currently from other sources such as E -PRTR85 there is a 
strong environmental rationale for monitoring them more closely . One competent 
authority suggested to additionally include (fugitive) emi ssions from stocks in order to 
capture all relevant and potential emission sources.  
C3. Add global warming potential (GWP) values to increase awareness of the climate 
impacts of ODS  
This policy measure is an awareness raising measure and does not have imme diate 
economic or social impacts . However , it is important in case other greenhouse gas relevant 
legislation points to the climate impact of these gases and for emission monitoring (in 
combination with C2). Although a majority of the authorities supported this revision, 
questions were raised by some on added value and environmental benefits.  
C4. Require reporting on sales and purchase s of controlled ODS (Annex I) also for 
producers, destruction facilities and feedstock and process agent users  
This measure is expected to slightly increase the administrative burden for some of the 
affected businesses.  Reporting intra -EU sales is expected to impact most businesses who are 
still involved with ODS. However, most trade flows are expected to be linked to a select 
number of multinational companies, as by far the largest quantities of use are linked to 
feedstock. Similar to some of the other monitoring measures above, some business 
stakeholders indicated this would not increase costs for them substantially, as data i s already 
collected internally. Businesses indicated additional costs to be from 0 up to 3 working days. 
Assuming an additional 20% in reporting effort for 50% of companies, the impact would 
amount to €13,000 per year for all undertakings combined. These a dditional costs are not 
expected to change with time assuming the production of ODS stays stable. The main benefit 
will result from better control on existing trade flows, which may be desirable in case the 
traditional control system s such as  quotas and re gistrations are removed  (supporting the 
putting in place of efficiency measures B4 and B5).  
C5. Add new substances to Annex II B  
This measure is expected to increase the administrative burden for some of the affected 
businesses.  From the stakeholder consultation, the expected additional reporting cost for a 
large business to report  on the production of a new ODS is one to two weeks of person days 
per year. Some authorities referred to potential future positive environmental impac ts of the 
measure as it would allow for informed decisions on potentially controlling their use in the 
future based on the reported data. On the other hand, businesses often considered the 
environmental impacts of potential new ODS as low since they do not  remain for a very long  
time in the atmosphere (VSLS). As DCM is produced using methylchloride (already in 
Annex II) as a feedstock, existing reporting data on the latter substance (e.g. 14 companies) 
can be used as a proxy for the number of companies like ly to be faced with an additional 
reporting requirement on production. This would add 21 weeks of yearly reporting effort for 
                                                           
85 E-PRTR emission data is limited for monitori ng of climate effects since it is not reported for individual 
substances included in the Ozone Regulation and has a different scope, due entities covered, as well as 
capacity and pollutant thresholds.  
 
37 all pro ducers combined, which totals € 6,200 per year of additional reporting costs.86 For PCE 
there are only 8 registrants in the R EACH database, 5 of which already report under this 
Regulation. PCE is commonly used as a dry cleaning agent, but these users (e.g. the dry 
cleaning industry and its 1000s of SMEs) would not be covered by the reporting obligation. 
From E -PRTR, 30 companies  report PCE industrial activities, not all of which would fall 
under the new reporting requirement. 45 weeks73 of additional reporting effort are estimated 
in total, or €13,300 additional reporting burden per annum. The impacts of inclusion of 2 -
BTP are expected to be even lower, as this is chemical produced or imported in lower 
volumes and by a few companies only . Based on these considerations, about €25,000 in total 
additional costs can be expected for reporters. Adding three substances to the reporting 
system requires only minimal changes to the EEA reporting system.  
 
6.4. 6.4. Improve coherence and clarity  
These mea sures are not expected to have significant economic and environmental impacts. 
Across consultation activities, all stakeholders generally agreed that it is important to have a 
clearer and more accessible legal text of the Regulation. Most options contribut e to 
improving compliance and enforcement by providing clarifications. Option D3 may help to 
avoid costs for business and authorities by allowing to adjust infeasible obligations, and help 
the environment if progress on alternatives is reflected in a more timely  way. The custom s 
alignment measure allow s for better custom s controls and are widely supported by 
stakeholders including customs authorities consulted. Measure D8 may have a positive 
environmental impact for cases where this obligations is not alrea dy complied with by 
fluorocarbon producers outside the EU.  
7. 7. HOW DO THE OPTIONS CO MPARE ? 
Table 3 provides an overview of the impacts of the measures in the three policy options.  
Table 3. Overview of impacts for the each measures included in each of the 3 options  
Measures  Environment  Economic impacts  – cost increases or savings (per 
year unless otherwise specified)  Indirect 
economic/  
social  Business  Member 
States  EC/ 
EEA 
 Option 1  
A1 
(a) Foam bank recovery  
Sandwich Panels 
only  (++) 
up to 18,200 tODP  
Or 88 MtCO2e  (-/--) 
Abatement costs87:  
€25,000/tODP  
€5.1/tCO2e   
(-) 
Enforcement 
costs  N/A (+) R&D,  
(+) 
Employment
: 215 FTEs,  
(+/-) Real 
estate prices  
                                                           
86 Assuming 1.5 week per company based on stakeholder feedback  
87 Costs c ould be higher in some M ember States  but should be well below €228€/tCO2e  (asbestos proxy costs)  
in all cases  
 
38 B1 Trader licences  Positive due to better 
controls with CERTEX/Single 
Window  (++) 
Total savings of 
49,000 -119,000  Benefits from 
CERTEX/Singl
e Window  (++) 
95 person 
days 
savings  
One-off 
costs for IT 
changes   N/A 
  
B4 Abolish laboratory 
register  0 (++) 
€ 50,000 savings  (0/-) 
enforcement  (++) 
99 person 
days 
savings  
€ 31,500  
IT savings   N/A 
B5 Abolish quota  0 (+) 
Savings of  
€ 11,000  (+) 
Small savings  (+) 
Savings of 
60 person 
days  N/A  
B6 Delay one halon cut -
off date for aircraft 
cargo 
compartments to 
2024  0 (++) 
Savings of 120+ 
person days 
(€36,000)  (++) 
Savings of up 
to 120 person 
days  (++) 
Savings of 
up to 320 
person 
days  N/A 
C1 Annex II reporting  (+) 
Better overview on ODS use  (-) 
€ 5,500  N/A N/A N/A 
C3 Add GWP to Annex  (+) 
Better awareness on climate 
effects  0 N/A N/A N/A  
  Option 2 (includes also all measures of Option 1)  
A1 
(b) Foam bank recovery  
also for laminated 
boards  (+++) 
Additional 14 000 tODP=  
90 MtCO 2e 
[i.e. in total for panels and 
boards  (A1(a)+A1(b)) :  
up to 32,000 tODP  
Or 179 MtCO2e]  (-/--) 
Abatement costs87:  
€87,000 -132,000 / 
tODP  
€15.0 -18.4 / 
tCO2e   
(-) 
Enforcement 
costs  N/A (++) R&D,  
(++) 
Employment
: 2400 FTEs,  
(+/-) Real 
estate prices  
A4 Halons destruction  (+) 
Max 21 tODP and 15,000 
tCO2e annually by 
avoiding new production  
requires good enforcement 
/positive global ODS policy 
implications  (0/-) 
Good re -sale value, 
but (cross -border) 
transport may be 
costlier for some, 
record keeping  (-) 
Some 
enforcement 
costs  N/A N/A 
B2 Better monitoring of 
illegal goods  
(++) 
(reduced illegal trade)  (-)  
More data to 
customs  (-) 
Follow -up on 
suspicious 
cases  (-) 
Follow -up 
on 
suspicious 
cases   N/A 
B3 Special custom rules 
for ODS  (-)  
Less flexibility  (-) 
More 
obligations to 
check  N/A  N/A 
C2 Report production 
emissions  (+) 
Better knowledge on 
climate emissions  (-) 
€ 20,000  N/A N/A N/A  
C4 Report intra -EU 
sales  (+) 
Better overview of ODS 
trade  (-) 
€ 13,000  N/A N/A N/A 
C5 New Annex II 
substances  (+) 
Better overview of future 
risks  (-) 
€25,000  N/A (0/-) 
Update of 
EEA 
reporting 
system  N/A 
 Option 3 (includes also all measures of Options 1 & 2)  
A2 Feedstock negative 
list (+/-) 
(highly uncertain benefits)  (---) 
Potentially high 
impact, > €100 
million capital (-) 
€ 4,000  (-) 
Up to 
€10,000  
for (- --) 
Employment
: Loss of 
several 1000 
 
39 investment cost if 
production facilities 
displaced  maintenan
ce of 
negative 
list FTEs 
possible  
(+/-) R&D  
(0/-) 
Consumer 
prices  
A3 Halons end dates  (+) 
max  
35 tODP or  
0,044 MtCO2e p.a.  N/A (--) 
 > € 10 
million88 
across 2020 - 
2035  N/A N/A 
A5 Annex II RACHP  (+/-) 
(positive for ODP, but 
uncertain future CO 2e 
emission balance)  (-) 
Possibly higher 
costs for endusers, 
manufacturers,gas 
producers  N/A N/A N/A 
Legend:  Scale applied is +++,++,+,0, -,--,--- (very high/positive to very low/negative); Corresponding colour 
codes are dark/medium/light red, yellow (neutral), light/medium/dark green  
All 3 Options include the measure s to improve clarity and coherence, aligning  with the Protocol (D1 -2), with 
comitolo gy rules (D3), customs law (D4 -6), the en vironmental crimes directive (D7 ), and the F -gas Regulation  
(D8) . As alignment measures , these are not resulting in relevant additional impacts.  
 
The low -cost option (Option 1 ) would save a relevant amount of emis sions (18,200 tODP or 
88 million tCO2e until 2050) due to the mandatory reclamation and destruction of ODS from 
sandwich panels (the most cost -efficient type of foam to be recovered). It would achieve 
costs savings for  business and authorities by modernising the licensing system, abolishing 
quotas and the laboratory registration system as well as allowing more time to eliminate 
halons in aircraft cargo compartments. Very minor costs linked to reporting (C1) may be 
incur red. Given the fact that it fails to achieve other proportionate emission savings (i.e. 
measure A1(b)), and does not include a number of efficiency and monitoring measures with 
environmental benefits at moderate costs, its effectiveness and coherence with the Green 
Deal is only slightly positive. On the other hand, as it comes at a very low costs, its economic 
effects are negligible, cost efficiency is good and social effects (employment) are positive due 
to in particular R&D and job creation in the waste t reatment sector.  
Option 2 would almost double the emission saving s from foams (32,000 tODP or 179  Mt 
CO2e), still at moderate abatement costs, as well as reducing the risk that new production of 
halons will be needed, ensure that border controls can be improved and that relevant data is 
available to monitor climate effects, any emerging issues and as yet unmonitored trade flows. 
Additional costs largely arise from the foam measure (for building owners) but these will be 
spread  over many years and number of persons/entities. Finally,  there are some reporting 
costs to companies, and some enforcement costs for customs. Option 2 is very effective and 
in line with the Green Deal as it achieves a high amount of emission  reduction s at 
proportionate costs. While the cost efficiency of the measures is good, there are some 
additional costs linked to better control and monitoring. Employment is stimulated in the 
waste sector.  
                                                           
88 Costs are difficult  to estimate given the different situation of  the military in Member States.  
 
40 The overall emission savings of Option 3 are only very marginall y higher than Option 2. This 
is because the major emission savings potential is linked to the  recovery of foams, which is 
the same for both options. Also, some of the small er additional achievable emission savings 
from Option 3 may cance l out due to negative effects on e.g. energy use and emissions of 
other greenhouse gases (HFCs). Prohibiting some feedstock uses and anticipating halon end 
dates would likely lead to very high costs to business and the military and may have 
considerable det rimental effects on employment  (despite the stimulus in the waste sector) . 
Given these costs, its coherence with the Green Deal is considered to be lower than in Option 
2, even though a similar amount of emissions is saved.  
The coherence options as well a s clarifications are included in all three ambition scenarios. 
By design they all constitute improvements, however their im pacts could not be quantified.  
  
 
41 Table 4: Comparison of the impacts of the options  
                                                    Policy options  
Impacts and cost efficiency  Option 1  Option 2  Option 3  
Effectiveness  / emission reductions  + +++ +++ 
Coherence with the European Green Deal  + +++ ++ 
Economic impacts   +/- -  - -  
Cost efficiency   ++ ++ --- 
Social impact  + ++ -- 
+++/++/ + positive, -/--/--- negative   
8. 8. PREFERRED OPTION  
The preferred option is Option 2.  It achieves significantly more emission savings than the 
low cost option and is therefore more coherent with the European Green Deal than Option 1 
(See Table 4). Moreover, compared to the forecasted costs in the EU long term strategy 
needed to reach clima te neutrality (€390/tCO2e), the abatement costs for Option 2 are 
very reasonable  and proportionate to what is asked of other sectors . On the other hand, 
Option 3 would add considerable costs at only incremental and possibly doubtful 
environmental benefit.  
The preferred option is characterised as follows:  
 The main additional way of avoiding emissions, in climate and ozone terms, is to 
make explicit requirements on recovering some foams from construction and 
demolition waste and destroy ing the ODS contained therein;  
 It should also be prohibited to destroy halons to preserve stocks for the remaining 
critical uses until these have all disappeared, to prevent a future need for new 
production of halons;  
 All options that are meant to reduce the burden on companies and authorities and/or 
improving the controls in place are included;  
 All options to improve monitoring are included;  
 All options to improve coherence and clarifications are included.  
 
8.1. 8.1. REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency)  
A significant focus of this review is on increasing efficiency of the existing measures, rather 
than creating new ones, given that this is a Regulation that has been evolving over three 
decades. The cost savings achievable by some of these efficiency measu res are outlined in 
Table 5. In addition, two efficiency measures (B2 and B3) aim at increasing custom s controls 
in order to control illegal trade more tightly at little extra cost.  
  
 
42 Table 5. Refit costs savings of the preferred option  
REFIT Cost Savings  – Preferred Option(s)  
Description  Amount  
 Comments  
Implementation of a trader licence (B1). 
Businesses apply for trade licences 
instead of per -shipment licences to 
reduce administrative costs.  Undertakings : €49,000 -
119,000 per year  
 
EC: 95 person days per year  Non -aviation importers and 
exporters are the recipient of the 
recurrent cost saving.  
Abolish the registration requirements in 
the LabODS Registry (B4). Reduces the 
administrative burden and IT costs.  Undertakings : €50.000 per 
year;  
EC: annual 99 person days + 
€31.500 IT maintenance 
and development costs  Laboratories and other entities 
(including SMEs)  
EC: annual 72 person days for 
processing registrations: 27 
person days on the IT system;  
Abolish annual allocation of quota by 
Commission Decisions (B5). Reduces the 
administrative burden.  Undertakings : €11.000 per 
year  
EC: 60 person days per year  Feedstock, process agent, halon 
and laboratory users.  
Also small savings for Member 
States by avoiding preparation of 
Committee meeting  
Delay a halon cut -off date for newly type 
approved aircraft to prevent 
administrative costs for individual 
derogations requests and Commission 
Decisions (B6).  Undertakings : up to 
€36,000 in total;  
Member States : up to 120 
person days in total;  
EC: up to 320 person days 
in total  Aviation companies  
 
9. 9. HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPAC TS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED ? 
Future monitoring and evaluation of the Regulation can rely on the Regulation’s company 
reporting data that is collected and aggregated by the EEA each year. A confidential report on 
ODS activities within the EU has been  drafted by the EEA for Member State  representatives 
and DG CLIMA which includes data on imports, exports, production, destruction, process 
agent use, feedstock use and consumption, stocks and data on new ODS (Annex II). The 
evaluation and this document relies heavily on these data for its a nalysis. The data reported 
on production, feedstock, destruction, imports and exports are presented to the Ozone 
Secretariat, to comply with the EU’s annual reporting obligation carried out on this basis. In 
addition, there is a public version in the form of a web -based ODS indicator published and 
updated regularly by the EEA. The policy options C1, C2 and C5 would improve the 
completeness of this monitoring, in particular as regards production, feedstock use and 
related emissions of both Annex I and II sub stances as well as three new ODS added.   
In addition, Member States reporting pursuant to Art. 26 allows to (i) monitor the availability 
of halon stocks to satisfy the remaining critical uses, and to (ii) report on illegal trade 
activities which may give an indication of the success of aligning with custom s rules and 
improving controls, including through modernising the licensing system. Efficiency 
improvements will be monitored by the amount of resources still needed on the EC side, as 
well as the numbers  of (traders) licenses that companies would still require.  
 
43 The enforcement of the recovery of foam banks would be in the hands of the competent 
Member State  authorities. There are synergies with national waste regulations that may 
already monitor the pres ence of hazardous substances such as ODS in demolition wastes, that 
would allow to better ensure that ODS are indeed recovered for destruction. Given the 
distributed nature of the source (i.e. insulation foams in millions of old buildings everywhere, 
as we ll as in landfills), regular monitoring of the ODS bank s seems difficult to achieve (see 
discarded options).  
An evaluation of the Regulation should be carried out by 203 3. In this context, a study similar 
to SKM Enviros (2012) would be needed to estimate the progress  on foam banks . The 
evaluation should also examine the developments in  administrative costs.  
  
 
44 Annex 1: Procedural information  
1. LEAD DG,  DeCIDE PLANNING /CWP  REFERENCES  
 Lead Directorate -General (DG) of the European Commission: DG Climate Action (DG 
CLIMA).  
 The ODS Regulation was selected for the REFIT programme.  The preceding evaluation 
has been carried out by Unit A2 - Climate Finance, Mainstreaming, Montreal Protocol.  
The result can be found here: 
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/default/files/ozone/docs/swd_2019_406_en.pdf   
 Decide Planning reference: PLAN/2019/927 “Impact Ass essment of the Ozone 
Regulation”.  
B. ORGANISATION AND TIMI NG 
 As per the Better Regulation Guidelines, an Interservice Group  (ISG) was set up in 
March 2020 on the basis of the ISG for the evaluation to follow up and steer the 
assessment process. The ISG ensure d coherence and comprehensiveness with the 
Commission’s overall responsibilities and activities in related policy areas, such as 
environment, economic growth and customs.  
 The ISG for this impact assessment involved staff from the following Commission’s 
departments in addition to DG Climate Action: DG ENER, DG ENV, DG GROW, DG 
TAXUD, Legal Service, and Secretariat -General. Also invited to all meetings and 
receiving the background information, but not attending, were DG MOVE and DG 
TRADE.  
 The ISG met three ti mes (per videoconference): 23 April 2020, 18 November 2020, and 
23 March 2021.  Through these meetings and several written exchanges, the ISG 
participated in the whole impact assessment process leading to the finalisation of the 
external study and this Sta ff Working Document. A written consultation was made on a 
draft of the final Impact Assessment on 17 May and subsequently bilateral meetings 
were held on 27 May with the Services that provided comments.   
 The Commission signed a contract for a support stud y on the impact assessment 
(contract ref.  340201/2019/815261/ETU/CLIMA.A.2) on 27 November 2019. The final 
report of the support study was approved on 2 June 2021.  
 An inception impact assessment  was published on 26 March 2020 on the Commission's 
Europa web  site89. The feedback period was open until 23 April 2020.  
 A public consultation  ran from 13 July 2020 to 9 November 2020 (17 weeks, extended 
because of summer period and pandemic). The results have been published online.90 
 
                                                           
89 https://ec.europa.eu/info/l aw/better -regulation/have -your -say/initiatives/12310 -Ozone -layer -protection -
revision -of-EU-rules  
90 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better -regulation/have -your -say/initiatives/12310 -Ozone -layer -protection -
revision -of-EU-rules/public -consultation  
 
45 C. CONSULTATION OF THE RSB  
The draft  impact assessment  was submitted to the Board on 2 June 2021.  
The meeting with the Regulatory Scrutiny Board  (RSB) took place on 30 June 2021.  
  
The Board g ave a positive opinion  but also consider ed that the report should fur ther improve 
with respect to the description of some measures and options as well as the impact analysis of 
a number of measures  
The Board asked to improve the following:  
 The report should present more clearly the measures and policy options. It should 
explain how the individual measures were selected. As regards the measures to reduce 
emissions, the report should justify the focus on obligations and prohibitions, and 
explain why other measures such as economic incentives are not considered. It should 
clarify which types of foam banks are covered by the different options on their 
recovery and destruction and why.  
In response, the description of  measures and policy options, including their selection , 
was significantly improved  in section 5.2. More detail on foams , including  a reference 
to economic incentives, is given in 5.2.1 and Annex 6.  
 The report should strengthen the impact analysis. It should increase the robustness of 
the evidence by including information from more coun tries on the feasibility and costs 
of the mandatory destruction of some types of foam banks. It should clarify the level 
of additional costs for the monitoring of illegal goods. For the measure that introduces 
a negative list for chemical production proces ses, it should expand on how this 
measure will lead to very significant economic costs for the limited emission 
reductions. The report should strengthen the analysis on the impacts on renovation 
costs, consumer prices and affordability for vulnerable consu mers.  
In response , the sections on measure A1 was significantly improved (5.2.1 and 6.2.1). 
In particular, a number of fur ther countries were examined as regards the feasibility 
of foam recovery and destruction . As additional quantitative cost data was difficult to 
obtain, a s a proxy a  worst -case approximation using asbest os removal was carried 
out for which  cost data was available (this was added to section 6. 2.1 and Annex 6). 
Further details was also provided on renovation costs, consumer prices and 
vulnerable consumers . The sections on illegal goods and chemical production were 
strengthened.  
 The report should elaborate on differences across Member States as regards their 
contribution to remaining emissions. It should explain to what extent impacts are  
expected to differ across Member States, possibly depending on the geographical 
concentration of the most affected s ectors, the historic use of products containing 
ODS and existing policies on waste management, including enforcement.  
More information is p rovided with regards to foams where this is most relev ant in the 
Annex 6 and the impacts of measure A1 in section 6.1.  
 The report should improve the comparison of options. It should be consistent on the 
scores allocated to each measure.  
 
46 This section was improved and inconsistencies avoided , in particular in overview 
tables 3 and 4 . Annex 10 was updated to clearly illustrate which measures belong to 
the three options.  The selection of the preferred Option 2 was better justified.  
 
A number of additional imp rovements were made taking into account the technical 
comments received from the Board, including on how the Regulation link s to other 
EU legislation, a better description of the envisaged future customs controls and the 
issue of illegal trade under the pr oblems section (2.1.3), more information on the 
baseline of other impacts,  
D. EVIDENCE , SOURCES AND QUALITY  
This impact assessment draws on a support study carried out by an external consultant 
including an extensive consultation of the relevant stakeholders  and experts as well as on the 
internal expertise of the Commission.  
The evidence used for the  impact assessment  comes from several data sources, in particular 
the annual reports on ozone -depleting substances by the European Environment Agency and 
the cons ultation with stakeholders, including Member States authorities and undertakings. 
More information is provided in the Annex on methodology below. The support study is the 
source for data in cases where no particular external source is mentioned.  
  
 
47 Annex 2: Synopsis report of stakeholder consultations   
A. INTRODUCTION  
This report summarises the results of the consultation activities carried out for the Impact 
Assessment for amending Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 on substances that deplete the 
ozone layer (ODS  Regulation).  
The consultation aimed to capture feedback from industry, public authorities and civil society 
through:  
 An inception impact assessment91 (IIA) , for which the feedback period ran in March 
- April 2020. 4 responses were received.  
 A public consultation92 (OPC) that ran in July - November 2020. 34 respondents 
replied.  
 A targeted stakeholder consultation (TSC)  that was tailored to ODS businesses, 
NGOs and public authorities and involved 42 stakeholders.  
 An online stakeholder workshop  held on 26 February 2021 to present preliminary 
results of the impact assessment and ask for stakeholder input on existing data gaps. 
66 stakeholders participated. 12 organisations provided written feedback after the 
event.  
 
Key stakeholders in the processes  were:  
1. Authority   MS Authorities  
 Customs Authorities  
2. Business   Chemical industry including importers/exporters  
 Laboratories  
 Aerospace industry (halon users)  
 Reclamation/Recycling/Incineration companies  
3. Other   EU bodies (e.g. European Aviation Safety 
Agency)  
 EU citizens  
 Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs)  
 International organisations including technical 
panels of the Montreal Protocol  
                                                           
91 https://ec. europa.eu/info/law/better -regulation/have -your -say/initiatives/12310 -Ozone -layer -protection -
revision -of-EU-rules  
92 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better -regulation/have -your -say/initiatives/12310 -Ozone -layer -protection -
review -of-EU-rules/public -consultation  
 
48 B. RESULTS OF THE CONSUL TATION ACTIVITIES  
Achieving a higher level of emission reductions  
Respondents were asked about the importance of achieving a higher level of emission 
reductions through the revision of the ODS Regulation and potential impacts of the related 
policy options. Across all consultation activities, all respondents agreed on the  importance of 
safeguarding the progress made and most respondents also welcomed maintaining global 
leadership and a higher level of ambition. On the latter, while Authorities and ‘Other’ 
stakeholders were mostly in favour of additional ambition, Businesse s were divided in their 
views. A Business representative mentioned that the options to achieve a higher level of 
emission reductions should be combined with new reporting obligations on emissions to 
better monitor the progress made.  
Limiting the exempted uses further in line with technological progress  
On the option to prohibit the use of ODS in two chemical production processes  where 
alternatives apparently exist, Businesses expressed strong concerns on the technical and 
economic feasibility of the alter natives, e.g. regarding the level of investment, and the 
achievable environmental effects. They flagged that the prohibition may lead to a larger 
amount of ODS to be incinerated and create higher energy use. A Business mentioned that 
the ODS would still ex ist as by -product from other processes. Hence if its use were 
prohibited, it would need to be destroyed and therefore there would still be an environmental 
impact. A Business indicated that the overall GHG footprint of the alternative production 
pathway is  higher than for the current process. However, a few Authorities supported the 
option as they wanted a faster reduction of such uses.  
On the option to anticipate some prohibition dates for fire -fighting equipment containing 
or relying on halons , Authoritie s and Businesses acknowledged the potential for a positive 
environmental impact, but at the same time stated that the ODS quantities and related 
emissions are low. ‘Other’ stakeholders considered it would not be feasible to review 
prohibitions dates for mi litary applications due to technical limitations. Authorities quoted the 
potentially high costs and highlighted the importance of halons for defence applications.  
On the option to prohibit the destruction of halons , as their production is not anymore 
allowed and stocks are decreasing, most businesses indicated that no significant economic 
impacts would be incurred. However a Business mentioned that halons can be contaminated 
in some cases and therefore cannot be recycled. Another Business stated that the p rohibition 
to destroy halons should exempt cases of complex mixtures of chemicals with similar boiling 
points, because the reclamation is not feasible. Authorities mentioned a potential increase of 
their costs due to a need for additional enforcement and c hecks. Every group indicated 
positive environmental impacts, if the implementation avoids the need for halon production 
to be permitted under the Montreal Protocol. On the other hand, stakeholders also pointed to 
potential adverse environmental impacts if undertakings would release the halons to the 
atmosphere instead of shipping it to a country where demand for halons exists. An Authority 
also noted that prohibition itself may not ensure recycling, due to hazardous waste / waste 
 
49 shipment regulation barrier s and the lack of demand for recycled halons in some Member 
States.  
Other options for achieving a higher level of emission reductions  
Stakeholders from each group stated that mandating recovery and destruction of foam 
banks  is feasible for some cases, e.g . metal -faced panels. Some Authorities raised concerns 
regarding the costs for the proper treatment of the waste. Businesses indicated that a large 
fraction of the costs depends on the level of disaggregation of waste during waste 
management. Additional co sts for the separate collection of foam material are likely to vary 
considerably among EU MS, depending on national regulations. Regarding the environmental 
impacts, Authorities and Businesses confirmed that the policy option would have a 
considerable posi tive environmental impacts in saving emissions.  
Regarding prohibiting the use of new ODS (listed in Annex II) in cooling systems , 
stakeholders from each group stressed that these chemicals replace HFCs, which are 
substances with much higher GWP. All stake holder groups expected negative economic 
impacts for companies which already invested in using ODS additives to make their HFC 
alternatives marketable and safe. Businesses stated that environmental gain is likely to be 
low, due to the relatively low ODP an d atmospheric lifetimes of the new ODS that would be 
prohibited. One Authority indicated that other alternatives for cooling equipment are 
available, which is why the use of an ODS should be prohibited.  
Improving the efficiency of the Regulation while preserving effective prevention of illegal 
activities  
As regards the option to replace per -shipment licences with multi -shipment licences  (so-
called “trader licenses”) for bulk substances and products or equipment with ODS, once the 
Single Window environme nt for customs93 is in place, Businesses suggested that recurring 
licensing costs for bulk substances could decrease by up to 80%. Several authorities indicated 
the introduction of trader licenses would not lead to significant changes in their costs, but on e 
respondent expected a 50 -60% reduction in the number of licences the European Commission 
would be required to process. Only a few Authorities indicated significant positive 
environmental impacts, i.e. a further reduction of illegal trade, from the policy  option because 
the current licensing system is considered to work well. Two Authorities mentioned that the 
current ODS Regulation has already successfully introduced multi -shipment licenses for 
aviation equipment. Two Authorities were sceptical about the timeline for the introduction of 
the Single Window Environment.  
All stakeholders supported aligning with customs legislation and including all customs 
procedures  in the licensing system, including controlling special customs procedures for 
ODS (such as tra nsit, storage, specific use and processing). Three Authorities considered that 
including customs procedures could increase the administrative burden. No respondent was 
able to provide evidence on environmental impacts. However, it was indicated that the po licy 
                                                           
93 https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/general -information -customs/electronic -customs/eu -single -
window -environment -for-customs_en  
 
50 option might enhance monitoring of shipments to some extent and therefore decrease illegal 
trade. A business welcomed possible improvements envisaged by enabling better custom 
controls, but mentioned the need to ensure consistency between the Regulati on on fluorinated 
greenhouse gases (F -gas Regulation) and the ODS Regulation.  
Authorities envisaged that cost savings could be achieved by abolishing the registration 
process for laboratories . One Business was able to indicate the economic impact of the 
abolishment of the registration requirement as a reduction of 25.6 hours per year. The 
concerned laboratories welcomed the proposal as it would decrease their administrative costs. 
However, some other Businesses expected that some of the administrative burde n currently 
incurred by laboratories could be shifted to ODS suppliers and Authorities for tracking and 
spot-checking the necessary records. Some Businesses and Authorities also feared that some 
oversight and control of this ODS use might be lost. One Business indicated that the EU’s 
registry is one of few sources of information on the availability of alternatives to ODS in 
laboratory or analytical uses that informs respective bodies under the Montreal Protocol.   
Businesses generally favoured abolishing  the annual allocation of quota for import and 
production of ODS. A Business indicated likely positive economic impacts due to EU 
companies being able to import ODS at short notice (without having applied for quota at least 
half a year in advance). Authori ties had mixed views, and although they agreed with all other 
stakeholders that the option would result in a reduction in administrative costs, some 
Authorities were concerned about the possible effect on the controls of ODS quantities and 
uses.  
On the opt ion to delay one prohibition concerning the use of halon -based fire protection 
equipment aboard aircraft  to 2024, Authorities acknowledged that this cut -off date was 
hard to meet by the aviation industry. Some Businesses mentioned that even the postponed 
date could be hard to comply with. Both Authorities and Businesses highlighted positive 
economic impacts from removing the need to request corresponding derogations from the 
cut-off date. Businesses considered the environmental impacts to be minor.  
Ensuring  more comprehensive monitoring  
Respondents were asked about the objective to ensure more comprehensive monitoring of the 
Regulation, while preserving effective prevention of illegal activities, and potential impacts 
of related policy options. Across consul tation activities, Authorities and ‘Other’ stakeholders 
placed high importance on additional reporting measures, whereas Businesses were divided 
on this issue.  
An option considered was aligning Businesses and Authorities considered that their costs 
would not increase if reporting obligations for new ODS (listed in Annex II) were aligned 
to those of ODS listed Annex I . A Business highlighted that the required data for new ODS 
was already collected by them and available for reporting or already reported. Som e 
Authorities indicated minor positive environmental effects as a result of better oversight, 
particularly with regard to completeness of emissions data from feedstock.  
Authorities and Businesses also indicated that economic impacts of a new reporting 
obligation requiring reporting on emissions for ODS production and destruction would 
 
51 be at most minor. However some Businesses mentioned that this option would introduce 
double regulation due to existing reporting obligations under the Industrial Emissions 
Directive (IED) and European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E -PRTR). One 
Business estimated no increase in costs, whereas two Businesses indicated higher costs 
corresponding to 1 -2 and 1 -5 additional working days per year. Environmental benefits we re 
indicated by Authorities due to improved oversight.  
Although a slight majority of the Authorities supported to add GWP values to substances 
listed in Annexes I and II of the ODS Regulation  as a way to increase awareness of the 
climate impact, some quest ions were raised on added value and environmental benefits. Both 
Authorities and Businesses indicated no additional costs related to this policy option. 
Businesses assessed this policy option as not beneficial to the environment as the remaining 
use of ODS  is mostly feedstock, where ODS are not emitted in significant quantities.  
Authorities and Businesses considered the option to require some ODS users to report on 
ODS sales to/purchases  from other EU undertakings as feasible, since many of these 
undertaki ngs already report on their suppliers and recipients. As the relevant data for 
reporting is basically already collected, Businesses indicated additional costs to be 0 -3 
working days. No environmental benefits were considered likely by stakeholders.  
Most A uthorities indicated that the policy option to add additional substances94 to the list of 
new ODS in Annex II, so that they would need to be reported in the future, would not lead to 
increases in implementation and enforcement costs. Many Authorities referr ed to potential 
future positive environmental impacts, as this option would allow for informed decisions on 
these new chemicals. On the other hand, Businesses considered environmental impacts of 
these two substances as low, since they are Very Short -Lived Substances (VSLS). A Business 
estimated additional costs for a laboratory supplier needing to report on the production of a 
new ODS as 0.625 days per year.  
Improving coherence of the Regulation  
Respondents were asked about the objective that aims to improve internal coherence of the 
Ozone Regulation. The policy options aligned provisions with other policies, addressed 
inconsistencies within the Ozone Regulation and streamlined legal text of the l egislation.  
For all stakeholders, aligning provisions with other EU policies were considered important. 
All stakeholders generally agreed that it is important to have a clearer and more accessible 
legal text of the Regulation. Policy options that improve the coherence of the ODS regulation 
are expected by most Authorities and Citizens to reduce administrative costs, whereas most 
Businesses expect no change in administrative costs. A customs representative stated that the 
alignment of the ODS Regulation wit h customs regulation is a must and that having an 
alignment with F -Gas licensing would increase effectiveness of controls and level of 
compliance.  
  
                                                           
94 E.g. Dichloromethane (DCM) and 2 -bromotrifluoropropene (2 -BTP).  
 
52 Annex  3: Who is affected and how?  
1. PRACTICAL IMPLICATION S OF THE INITIATIVE  
Due to the accomplished phase -out of most ODS, the number of stakeholders is now greatly 
reduced from the beginnings of this policy in the 1980s and 90s. It is now limited to a few 
entities in a number of discrete sectors. The five main business types that  are affected by the 
initiative:  
1. (Large) industrial chemical producers as well as incineration companies;  
2. Importers and exporters of ODS;  
3. Halon equipment owners, e.g. in aviation and the military;  
4. Laboratories, either public or private, who use ODS as sol vents for experimental use;  
5. Building owners, recycling and demolition companies.  
Given that the HCFC phase -out has now also been accomplished,  a new Regulation will 
cover less entities than the current Regulation did from its outset. Many measures 
discusse d set out small changes to an already well -established system of regulating ODS and 
therefore the corresponding changes to the costs (savings) are expected to be small. The 
main impact in terms of environmental benefits and abatement costs relates to 
insulation foams.   
Some of the efficiency measures (removal of obligatory laboratory registration and quota 
requirem ents) will reduce the number of companies directly affected further. Adding a few 
additional measures on monitoring will not add many new entities and the additional effort 
for the ones already affected is modest. The changes proposed to the ODS regulation  do not 
signify a significant change in the way of working for most companies (but may provide a 
boost to the recycling sector). A number of policy options are aimed at reducing 
administrative burden (B1, B5, B6, streamlining of trade via trade licences, a bolishing the 
ODS quota applications and delaying the halon cut -off date for aircraft compartments), but 
others may slightly increase the burden to achieve better oversight and control (options B2, 
B3, C1, C2, C4, C5 on additional monitoring and reporting) .  
Overall, it is not expected that category 1 businesses would not experience a noticeable 
increase in administrative cost.  
For category 2, there are significant savings from B1 and B5, which should more than 
compensate costs linked to better controls (B2 , B3).  
For category 3, A4 may result in some costs depending on the circumstances, while  
B6 should result in savings for aviation companies.  
For category 4 on laboratories, the suggested policy changes (B4, B5) in particular would 
represent a reduction i n administrative burden.  
 
53 For category 5, the policy option A1 (foams) would represent some compliance costs for the 
owners, though the extent depends on the national regulatory background (i.e. waste 
legislation), will be shared by a large number of build ing owners, over several decades, and is 
considered small compared to overall demolition, renovation or re -development costs. 
Moreover, these small increases are likely to affect business owners and citizens that own and 
develop real estate, i.e. that are relatively well off as opposed to vulnerable citizens.  
The burden for the authorities at European level (European Commission, EEA) will be 
significantly reduced, in line with a shift of focus from reducing gas uses further to 
ascertaining the general use p rohibition for ODS and avoiding emissions from historic uses. 
Better controls will be possible at less resources due to fully exploiting the combination of 
EU-wide electronic systems consisting of the ODS Licensing System and the EU Single 
Window Environme nt for Customs.  
The burden for national authorities will remain low and is mostly related to limited annual 
reporting, border controls and inspections, the latter in synergy with other legislation such as 
the Industrial Emissions Directive.  
Citizens benef it from the health benefits of avoiding dangerous radiation from the ozone hole, 
as well as lessening the impacts of a changing climate by keeping highly warming gases out 
of the atmosphere.  
2. SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS  
I. Overview of Benefits (total for  all provisions) – Preferred Option  
Description  Amount  Comments  
Direct benefits  
Reduced ozone - and 
climate -relevant emissions  Emission saving:  
32,000 tODP for 2021 -2050  
179 million tCO2e for 2021 -2050  Almost exclusively from action on foams 
(option A1),  
in addition some contributions from better 
controls and monitoring (options B1, B2, 
B3, C1, C2, C4) and prohibiting halon 
destruction (A4)  
Administrative cost 
reductions for business  Annual savings up to  €216,000  For business, mostly from efficiency options  
Affects importers/exporters (B1, B5), 
laboratories and other entities doing analysis 
(B4), chemical industry (B1, B5) and 
aviation companies (B6)  
Administrative cost 
reductions for authorities  Savings:  
694 person days/a up until 2024, 254 person 
days/a from 2024 onwards;  
Annual IT costs of €31,500  EC: 574 person days/a until 2024, 254 
person days/a thereafter,  
plus annual IT costs of €31,500  
Member States: 120 person days until 2024  
 
Indirect benefits  
Job creation  Up to 2400 FTEs  Recycling, reclamation and incineration 
entities  
R&D  Innovation on demolition and treatment processes 
for foams  
Knock -on effects on refrigerators recycling  Recycling, reclamation and incineration 
entities  
 
54  
II. Overview of costs – Preferred option  
 Citizens/Consumers  Businesses  Administrations  
One-off Recurrent  One-off Recurrent  One-off Recurrent  
Action A1   Direct costs  Compliance costs : 
Higher costs to 
building owners.  
Costs include:  
Recovery: ca. € 
1050 -1200/t;  
incineration 
€2500 -3500/t;  
Total costs: 1.98 
billion € 
distributed over a 
high number of 
owners;  
Abatement costs:   
€25,000 –132,000 / 
tODP or  
5.1-18.4 tCO2e   Compliance 
costs : 
Same as 
citizens if 
commercial 
building owner     
Indirect costs       Enforcement 
costs for 
Member 
States; 
synergies with 
waste and 
circular 
economy 
policies  
Action A4   
Direct costs    Compliance 
costs:  
Halon 
equipment 
owner (e.g. 
aviation 
company, 
military etc.)  
Costs may arise 
if transport, 
reclamation and 
sale is higher 
than destruction  Administrative 
costs:  
Keeping of 
records for 5 
years    
Indirect costs       Enforcement 
costs for 
Member States  
Action B1  Direct costs        
 Indirect costs      Changes to 
IT system 
for EC   
Action B2  Direct costs    Administrative 
costs:  
Minimal higher    
 
55 cost to 
importers   
 Indirect costs       Enforcement 
costs for 
Member States  
Action B3  Direct costs        
 Indirect costs    Administrative 
costs: Cost to 
acquire 
authorised 
trader status for 
importers  
 Compliance 
costs: Less 
flexibility on 
logistics for 
importers   Enforcement 
costs for 
Member States  
Action C1  Direct costs     Administrative 
costs  for 
reporting 
companies*: 
total €5,500 p/a    
 Indirect costs        
Action C2  Direct costs     Administrative 
costs  for 
producers/  
destruction 
companies/  
feedstock users: 
total €20,000 
p/a   
 Indirect costs        
Action C4  Direct costs     Administrative 
costs  for 
reporting 
companies*: 
total €13,000 
p/a   
 Indirect costs        
Action C5  Direct costs     Administrative 
costs  for 
reporting 
companies*: 
€25,000 p/a  
   
 Indirect costs        
* Reporting companies include ODS importers, exporters, producers, feedstock/process agent users and destruction companies  
 
  
 
56 Annex  4: Analytical methods  
A. Data sources  
The input data for modelling future developments of the baseline and the policy options relies 
on recent data on relevant parameters at substance level for the years 2010 -2019. It was 
developed using data from:  
• The European Environment Agency (E EA) annual report on ODS  based on company 
reporting under this Regulation (production, import, exports feedstock uses and 
process agents uses);  
• Commission’s ODS Licencing/Registration System, for laboratory use and imports 
and exports;  
• Member States reporting Art. 26(1)(b) for critical use of halons (2015 -2019);  
• Research on existing and future ODS emissions sources (Evaluation, Ramboll (2019);  
• Data on insulation foam banks from SKM Enviros (2012) and ICF (2018);  
• Stakeholder input collected throu gh the consultation process.  
The Commission also collected data based on an online open public consultation, a 
consultation of targeted stakeholders by an external consultant and an open stakeholder 
conference, see the consultation synopsis report in Annex  2. 
 
B. General overview of modelling approach for baseline  
The modelling of impacts relies on understanding the historic trends across environmental, 
economic and social variables. This data is used to define a baseline scenario across relevant 
environmental, economic and, where relevant, other impacts.  
Figure A4.1 shows a schematic overview of the approach to the impact assessment. 
Environmental and economic impacts are the main relevant impact categories, with social 
impacts treated as a follow -on effect (“other impacts” in the figure) of any economic changes 
experienced by stakeholders.  
 
57 Figure A4.1 Overview of the impact assessment model  
 
Historical data and relevant drivers define the future development of the relevant 
environmental variables  that the Ozone Regulation is targeting. The basis for estimating 
future emissions is the estimated developments of production, trade, uses and stocks/banks of 
ODS, from which emissions can occur, in addition to the relevant emission factors. The 
environme ntal module includes the flows of raw material (production, use, export, import 
etc.) and the associated emissions, for both ODS (Annex I) and new (Annex II) substances.  
The economic module then takes into account these drivers and adds costs for the rele vant 
stakeholders reflecting the Regulation, which are limited largely to administrative costs. The 
administrative costs are identified at the level of the relevant individual measures of the 
Regulation. Where possible, these administrative costs (such as the cost of licences) are 
projected into the future using known information about the policy they are supporting. 
Drivers from the environmental module are used to project administrative costs where there 
is no such information available, and where the ass umption of constant costs into the future is 
not considered reasonable.  
 
C. Development of relevant parameters for the baseline  
The production, use of, and storage of ODS releases emissions into the atmosphere, which 
can cause harmful effects due to their ozone depleting potential (ODP) and greenhouse 
warming potential (GWP). As a result, the environmental impacts associated with the 
emissions of ODS are twofold:  
1. Destruction of ozone  according to the ODP of a substance, which ranges from 0.005 
to 10 for con trolled substances, with a median of around 0.1.  

 
58 
2. Contributing to climate change  due to some ODS also having high GWP and long 
atmospheric lifetimes.  
Both of these environmental impacts are within the remit of the Regulation, which states that 
action has t o be taken to reduce emissions of the emitted gases “to protect human health and 
the environment against adverse effects resulting from such emissions and to avoid risking 
further delay in the recovery of the ozone layer.”  
The data on relevant parameters from recent years is used to derive the relationships between 
ODS uses/banks and emissions and the underlying drivers. The following parameters are 
considered:  
 ODS production, imports, exports, and uses , distinguishing between uses for 
feedstock, process a gents, laboratories, foam banks and critical halons applications.  
The data is summarised in Table A5.1 below, which gives the flow of these 
parameters as a time series.  
 Emission rates  include emissions from production and use of ODS, distinguishing 
betwee n emissions associated to the use for feedstock, process agent, laboratory use, 
foam banks and halon banks. Recent emission trends are shown in Table A5.2 below.  
Recent trends in the background data over the 2010 to 2019 period are used to make a 
prediction, in combination with expert judgement about what is likely to happen with the 
sector going forward, to produce the baseline up until 2050 for each ODS emissions source. 
The discussion below illustrates how this was done in detail. For emissions linked to uses of 
non-listed ODS and other uses of Annex II substances (e.g. solvent use), there is no reliant 
baseline information due to the lack of current systematic monitoring.  
Table A4.1 shows the recent trends observed for the relevant parameters.  
Table A4.1 Recent trends on flows of ODS (2010 to 2019 unless otherwise specified)  
Flow/ 
Stock  ODS source  2010 – 2019 trends (annual or stock tODP)  Data 
source  
 2010  Trendline  2019   
Raw 
material 
(annual 
flow)  Production  48,100  
 59,517  EEA 
Imports (2015 – 
2019)  2,420   
3,900  EEA 
Exports (2015 – 
2019)  3,609   
15,723  EEA 
Use 
(annual 
flow)  Feedstock  51,200  
 38,717  EEA 
Process agents  952 
 298 EEA 
Laboratory use  26 (2011)  No intermediate years data 
available  3 
(2017)  Evaluation  

 
59 Flow/ 
Stock  ODS source  2010 – 2019 trends (annual or stock tODP)  Data 
source  
Banks 
(annual 
size of 
the 
stock)  Foam Banks  2012 estimate at 570.000 tODP  SKM 
Enviros 
(2012)95 
Critical halons 
installed capacity 
(2015 – 2019)  645 (2015)  
 626 Art. 
26(1)(b) 
reports  
Annex II 
substan
ces Production  22,946  
 20,494  EEA 
Feedstock use  22,831  
 20,391  Evaluation  
 
In the EU, ODS are produced and imported for use by chemical industry (i.e. feedstock use, 
process agent sue), laboratory use, and for export outside the EU. Currently, only the 
chemical industry is using ODS in large quantities, mostly as feedstock.  
Prod uction  has increased significantly recently but this seems to be linked to a demand 
outside of the EU, as exports have similarly been rising strongly very recently. Production for 
the EU market, which is essentially for feedstock use, has been declining. E xports of ODS is 
sensitive to the global market, but feedstock use will continue worldwide in significant 
quantities.  As a proxy, the global chemical industry scenario from the IEA (SDS, Sustainable 
Development Scenario) for global ammonia96 demand is used.  It is expected however that 
many feedstock chemicals will also be produced in Southeast Asia in the future. With this in 
mind, exports are expected not to surpass the (high) 2019 figure and are kept constant. As a 
result, production of ODS (Annex I) expre ssed in tODP is expected to decrease over the 2020 
– 2050 period.  
For the use of ODS, between 2010 and 2019, and also for the more recent 2015 -2019 period, 
there is a clear decrease in feedstock use  (and process agent use), in terms of tODP. For 
feedstock use, the amount in metric tonnes has not decreased substantially, but the average 
ODP of the substances has. This reduction is due to a shift away from relatively high -ODP 
feedstocks (a sharp reduct ion of CTC use). For process agents  the reduction from 2015 is 
28.5%, although it should be emphasised that a single company takes up more than half of all 
the use. As there are alternatives for the use of ODS as process agents, they are expected to 
be pha sed out naturally in the medium term for the few remaining old installation that still 
use such processes. For feedstock use of Annex II substances, the decrease can be attributed 
to a decrease in methyl chloride production.  
If chemical production in the EU continues to grow at the same rate (0.3% annual growth as 
shown by CEFIC indicator in the last 5 years), we should expect to see the historical trends in 
                                                           
95 SKM Enviros (2012) , “Further Assessment of Policy Options for the Management and Destruction of  
Banks of ODS and F -gases in the EU”, European Commission Service Contract Number:  
070307/2010/576660/SER/CLIMA.C.2  
96 Ammonia is liked to pesticides production, one of the main feedstock uses of ODS  

 
60 ODS -related variables to continue. The downwards trends shown in the process agent (in 
tODP and met ric tonnes) and feedstock use (in tODP only) data, however, show very rapid 
decreases recently. If they were projected linearly into the future, the feedstock use in tODP 
would reduce more rapidly than what can be reasonably expected from the chemical indu stry, 
given that the total use in metric tonnes did not decrease.  
The ODS Regulation does not restrict feedstock use, and there is no technological 
justification to assume the reduced 2019 emissions and feedstock use ODP is a reliable trend 
that will cont inue at the same pace in the long -term. There are indications of industry re -
location to South East Asia, though this is difficult to forecast. To adjust our projection to 
these expectations and make sure our baseline scenario does not incorporate aggressi ve 
reductions, the reduction rate in tODP for feedstock is reduced to 33% of the 2010 -2019 
trends . This allows for the movement of less high -ODP feedstocks to continue, but reflects 
that in metric tonnes, feedstock use stays relatively constant. This corre ction was also 
applied for process agents, but more aggressively at 50%, as these are used in a small 
number of old installations in the EU, for which phase out is expected to continue.  
ODS emissions are mainly occurring from three sources:  
1. End-of-life emi ssions from banks , most notably foam banks, which account for the 
vast majority of remaining emissions.   
2. Industrial processes  whereby low amounts of emissions are released as part of ODS 
production, feedstock use, and process agent use  
3. The release of halon s during critical use applications and banks .  
 
In table A4.2 the recent emission factors and trends for different emission sources are given.  
Table A4.2 2019 emissions of ODS and recent trends of emissions factors  
Flow  ODS source  2019 
Emissions 
(tODP)  Emission factor trends for 2010 – 2019 (annual or stock tODP)  
Raw 
material  Production of 
controlled 
substances 
(2010 – 
2019)  10* No reliable data on trends available, as data is only 
reported voluntarily with varying sample size of < 10% of 
production.  Based on the latter, emission rates declined 
from 0.12% in 2010  0.02% 
(2019)  
Production of 
Annex II 
substances  Not reported, estimated as 4 (2019) based on emission factors established for 
Annex I substances as above  
Use Feedstock – 
controlled 
substances97 35 0.13% (2010)  
 0.09% 
(2019)  
Feedstock – 
Annex II  18 Not reported, but assumed to be similar as the EF for feedstock use 
of Annex I substances  
Process 
agents  4 11.78% (2010)  
 1.29% 
(2019)  
Laboratory < 1  Not available   
                                                           
97 Reported data for feedstock emissions is self -reported by industry, and may be underestimated, as the 
emission factor of 0.09% is below the lower value of the expected range of feedstock emissions at 0.1 – 4%. 

 
61 use 
Banks  Foam Banks  6000**                   Data not available on a yearly basis  
Critical halon 
applications 
(2015 – 2019)  22.6 0.75% (2015)98  
0.37% 
(2019)  
 
* Extrapolated value based on available data for 10% of the total production  
** value from SKM (2012)  
In the chemical industry, there are several uses with non -zero emission factors that are 
expected to continue into the future, including emissions from production, feedstock use, and 
process agent use.  
Raw material: Production emissions.  The annual produc tion of ODS is published annually 
by the EEA, based on self -reported data from each company producing in the EU. This does 
not include emissions associated with production, not being part of the reporting 
requirements. Some reporting companies do provide d ata on measurements or estimations of 
emissions associated with their production amounts. There is considerable margin for error, 
due to the low sample size of companies. Of 27 companies producing controlled substances 
in 2019, only five reported emissions . The self -reported emissions from the five reporting 
companies cover about ~ 10% of all ODS production.  
To obtain an estimate for all emissions associated with production, the available emission 
measurements were upscaled to the total amount of ODS produc ed. Due to the small sample 
size, the sharp decrease in the production emission factor shown in Table A4.3 can likely be 
attributed to the decrease in emissions between 2015 and 2019 from one company, while the 
production stayed the same. Therefore, when f orecasting, this drop in the emission factor is 
not taken into account and the average emission factor from production across 2010 -2019 is 
used instead. For production, this partly reflects the reduced emission factor from 0.12% to 
0.02%, at an average 0.0 54%.  In the absence of any data, the same emission factor was used 
for production of Annex II substances.  
Feedstock use emissions. ODS can escape during chemical production processes, even if 
they are intended to be fully consumed or  transformed during t he process. The average 
emission factor for feedstock emissions between 2010 and 2019 is moving from 0.13 to 
0.09% of the total feedstock that is used, which is on the low end of the expected emission 
factor at 0.1 – 4% globally 99. This emission factor is expected to go down further to 0.08% in 
the future, but is not expected to reduce further as the maximum reasonable emission 
reduction ceiling will be reached.  
In Europe, remaining ODS uses for industry happens in very controlled environments in a 
small n umber of companies, and therefore lower than average emission factors are expected, 
but there is still the possibility that emissions are underestimated. Comparison of some data 
with E -PRTR in the past has shown some inconsistencies, i.e. that emission lev els may be 
                                                           
98 The emission factor of the total bank each year (emis sions / (total installed + stock) is on average 0.5% over 
the 2015 – 2019 period.  
99 Sherry et al. (2018), Current sources of carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) in our atmosphere  

 
62 higher. For emissions from production there is no reporting requirement, and emissions 
estimates and their trends are based on only 10% of production.   
Emissions from feedstock use are therefore largely dependent on the total amount of ODS 
used for feedstocks. The same assumptions was made for the use of Annex II gases as 
feedstock.  
Process agent use emissions. ODS used as process agents may escape during the production 
process. In contrast to feedstock uses, ODS that are used as process agents a re not chemically 
transformed as part of the process, which is why relative emissions rates are higher than 
during feedstock uses. Based on the historical data reported, the emission factor is relatively 
constant at around 1.2% of total ODS used as a proce ss agent in the period 2016 -2019. 
However, only six companies carrying out such processes have remained active in the EU. 
These total emissions from process agents are dominated by activities from one of these six 
companies, who is responsible for more tha n 75% of emissions. The most recent emission 
factor (2019) of 1.3% is taken forward into the baseline. In the medium to long -term the use 
of process agents will be discontinued due to modernisation of plants which will significantly 
reduce emissions furthe r. 
Laboratory use emissions. No primary data on emission factors for laboratory use is 
available at this stage. Therefore, we have taken forward the estimate from the Evaluation at 
< 1 tODP per year as the baseline. We assume that the ODS emissions from la boratory uses 
will not change in the baseline, as up until 2050, there are no economic, technological, or 
policy reasons identified that would lead to a significant increase or decrease in laboratory 
activity associated to ODS use. This is because there is  very limited scope for any further 
reductions and these activities involving ODS are expected to continue in similar extent into 
the future, and may be less sensitive to economic growth as the industrial uses above.  
Moreover, the emissions associated to l aboratory use represents less than 0.1% of total 
emission associated to ODS.  
Foam bank emissions. Emissions from foam banks are the largest category, with an 
estimated 6,000 tODP of emissions in 2019, from a total bank of around 570,000 tODP 
estimated to exist in 2010. Furthermore, it was estimated that between 2015 and 2030, an 
average of ~ 13,000 tODP is added to this bank due to legacy materials reaching end -of-life. 
Due to this continuous input of material with ODS inside, the bank itself is not expect ed to 
reduce in size until after 2030, and annual emissions are also maintained and peak only after 
2030.  
This emissions source is significantly larger than emissions from any other use. As per 
analysis by SKM in 2012100, the annual emissions estimated from  foam banks are primarily 
emissions from decommissioning and demolition of buildings. They constitute about 1.2% of 
the bank each year. It is recognised to be difficult to efficiently recover/destroy the blowing 
                                                           
100 SKM Enviros (2012) , “Further Assessment of Policy Options for the Management and Destruction of  
Banks of ODS and F -Gases in the EU”  
 
63 agent after it has been integrated into a fo am product, which means that this emission factor 
of 1.2% of the bank per year is not expected to change in the baseline.  
Further research has been done to reduce the margin of error on the estimation of annual 
emissions from foam banks. If assuming that foam products have lifetimes of around 50 years 
before they are decommissioned (recycled), the implied foam bank emission rate from this 
would be about 2%. The actual emission rate of 1.2% is lower than the implied emission rate. 
This can be explained by t he fact that not all foam products are being decommissioned and a 
significant part ends up stored in landfills. There is therefore an unknown share of the 
570.000t ODP bank stored in landfills currently, which might lead to further fugitive 
emissions above  the current estimate of 1.2% per year.  
Some countries have done some research at a national level with respect to the remaining 
emission sources of ODS, based on observational data of concentrations present in the local 
atmosphere. There is also academic research with observational data that focuses on Europe 
as a whole. For example, the United Kingdom Met Office estimated about 400 tODP of 
unreported emissions101, which has not been part of the annual inventory reported to the EEA. 
These estimations are in a similar order of magnitude, extrapolating the emissions from one 
country to 27, with the expectation that there is between 6,000 and 7,000 tODP of emission 
from banks from the EU as a whole.  
Banks of critical use halon emissions. Emissions from critical uses of halons are reported 
under Article 26(1)(b) and are provided in the form of annual Member State reports. This 
data is used in conjunction with information on the total available stock and the specific 
prohibition dates for critical uses from the Eva luation. Article 26(1)(b) reports specify total 
emissions and total use, from which emission factors are determined.  
For banks of critical use halons, for which production is prohibited, the potential can be 
estimated by assessing the future end -dates by w hich these use cases will be fully prohibited 
under the current policy regime, combined with an emission factor for the remaining critical 
uses. These end -dates are based on data collected during the Evaluation, and result in a 
gradual reduction of the hal on bank to zero from 2040 onwards. There is a possibility that by 
the end dates, no alternatives are identified for remaining uses and therefore use will continue 
after 2040. This could apply to up to ~30% of the halon bank. Emission rates have been 
going down in recent years and stand at 24 tODP or almost 14,700 tCO2e in 2019. The 
average emission rate from the total halon bank over the period 2015 -2019 has been 0.5 %.  
Two other remaining emissions sources  of ODS that were considered in the Evaluation are  
solvent use and emissions from cooling equipment, e.g. refrigerators and air conditioners. 
These have not been considered in this impact assessment, as they are not relevant anymore. 
Solvent use has been prohibited since 2008 for all purposes. For RAC, em issions from banks 
of in -use or end -of-life RAC equipment are not considered significant in the EU anymore, 
given the large amount of time that has passed since the phasing out of this ODS use, so the 
                                                           
101 UK Met Office (2018), Long -term atmospheric measurement and interpretation of radiatively active trace 
gases  
 
64 remaining estimated emissions bank remaining in 2020 is  near zero102. Evidence exists from 
Poland that there is a remaining bank of ~83 tons of CFCs and HCFCs in containers holding 
3 kg ODS or more. Even when extrapolating this value to other Member States, this is a very 
small quantity compared to the estimated  bank of ODS in foams at 570.000 tODP. There is a 
contribution from old equipment in landfills to emissions.  
Based on the considerations above the drivers and assumptions made to construct the baseline 
scenario are summarised in Table A4.3.  
Table A4.3 Over view of drivers and assumptions for the baseline scenario of relevant parameters  
ODS emissions 
source  Stock or 
emissions 
(tODP and 
tCO2e)  Driver for 2020 – 2050 trend  
Production  Controlled 
substances 
(tODP stock)  Production reduces in line with use of controlled substances as feedstock (see below 
under Feedstock), to account for the expectation that most EU production will be for 
EU industry, and that exports is not used by industry to make up some of the 
difference of reduced demand.  
Emissions 
(tODP)  Emissions are reduced in line with production  
Emissions 
(tCO2e)  Emissions are reduced in line with production. See Feedstock use for calculation 
details of converting from tODP to GHG. No expected significant change in emission 
factor (EF) for production.  
Annex II 
substances 
(tODP stock)  Assumed to stay constant for use and emissions, as less regulatory pressure, but 
also no indication for significant growth from historic data (production stayed 
relatively constant across 2010 – 2019).  
As ther e is not enough primary data to uncover a meaningful trend in emissions data, 
this is also assumed to stay constant and is not reduced.  Emissions 
(tODP)  
 Emissions 
(tCO2e)  
Feedstock use  Controlled 
substances 
(tODP stock)  Taking the 2013 – 2019 trend.  2010 -2012 is excluded as there were very high 
feedstock quantities used which may have been affected by the economic recovery 
after the 2009 crisis. Using the 2013 to 2019 reduction results in an annual reduction 
of 3.53%. This reduction (in tODP) was con sidered as unrealistic to be sustained in 
the long run, so this reduction factor is divided by 3, assuming that intrinsic factors to 
the 2013 – 2019 period resulted in a faster reduction than is usual.  Further, an 
overall chemical sector production increa se of 0.3% per year is added to account for 
economic growth of the EU chemical sector in line with 2010 – 2019 trends103. Trend 
is applied to data reported for 2019 from EEA.  
Emissions 
(tODP)  Method similar to tODP stock, starting with reported EEA data, but emissions reduce 
slightly faster than use, reflecting a reduction in emission factor between 2010 to 
2019 (from 0.013 to 0.09). As the maximum potential is almost reached, emission 
factor is considered to reduce only from 0.09 to 0.08 between 2020 and 2050.  
Emissions 
(tCO2e)  Converted tODP to tCO2e using GWPs from the GHG protocol (citing IPCC AR5)104  
Annex II 
substances* 
(tODP stock)  Assumed to stay constant, in line with reasoning and driver for production of Annex II 
emissions.  
Emissions 
(tODP)  With use constant, emissions reduce only in line with the slowly reducing emission 
factor. This reduction in emission factor is assumed as equal to the reduction of the 
emission factor for controlled substances (which reduces from 0.09 to 0.08, or ~ 11% 
from 2020 to 2050).  
 Emissions 
(tCO2e)  Converted tODP to tCO2e using GWPs from the GHG protocol (citing IPCC AR5)   
                                                           
102 SKM (2012), Further Assessment of Policy Options for the Management and Destruction of Banks of ODS 
and F -Gases in the EU  
103 CEFIC (2020), CEFIC Economic Outlook 2021  
104 GHG protocol (2016), Greenhouse Gas Potential Values (citing from IPCC AR5), available at: available at: 
https://www.ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/ghgp/Global -Warming -Potential -Values %28Feb 16 
2016%29_1.pd f 
 
65 Controlled 
substance 
feedstocks with 
potential identified 
alternatives  Stock  
Identified via the uses highlighted in the Evaluation, and the process -specific data 
from the EEA reporting.  Emissions  
 Emissions 
(tCO2e)  
Process agent use  Stock  Process agent use is expected to decline significantly.to 25% of 2019 levels in 2040 
as old installations are being eliminated.  
Emissions  Emissions decline linearly in line with use.  
 Emissions 
(tCO2e)  Emissions decline linearly in line with use.  
Laboratory use  Licences (# 
no annual 
licences)  Use of the EC licence data to identify number of licences. The use of the Laboratory 
Registration System (LabODS) slowly increased and is expected to max out at 1200. 
Not expected to increase or decrease, as no clear link to 2010 – 2019 economic 
trends identified in the licence data.  
Emissions 
(tODP)105 Emissions assumed to be < 1 tODP per year and stay constant in line with licences.  
Foam banks  Annual 
release (tODP 
stock)  All data derived from the forecast model of SKM (2012) with no modifications.  
For ODS banks of foam, predictions on future emissions can be made through 
understanding the current size of the bank in combination with an assumption on how 
much of this is released into the atmosphere annually, which is set at 1.2% based on 
previous research  (SKM Enviros, 2012) .  
Large quantities of foams are reaching their end of life until 2030. Sustained high 
levels of emissions will occur until 2050 and beyond.  
 Emissions 
(tODP)  
Emissions   
(tCO2e)  
Critical use halons  Stock  Identified from the Evaluation support study, Table 38 (Ramboll, 2019).  
Emissions 
(tODP)  Using Article 26(1) reports, aggregated data for each Member State excluding the 
UK, for the 2015 to 2019 period.  As the required critical halon stock reduces in line 
with the prohibition dates, emissions are also reducing to a similar degree.  
See also Annex 5  
Emissions 
(tCO2e)  Converted tODP to tCO2e using GWPs from the GHG protocol (citing IPCC AR5)  
Imports  Annual flow  Imports and exports are aligned with the global IEA (2020) SDS (Sustainable 
Development Scenario) trend for Ammonia, as a proxy for the high -volume basic 
chemical production system that ODS are part of.  
Imports are relatively constant over the 2010 to 2019 period and therefore the 
average over th e 2015 – 2019 period is used as a starting point for extrapolating with 
the IEA SDS.  
Exports are not constant, as in 2019 exports increased by 150%, largely in line with a 
sharp reduction of feedstock demand. Therefore, exports cannot be assumed to stay 
in line with the average of 2015 – 2019 average. Instead, data point for 2019 is used 
as a baseline which is extrapolated using the IEA SDS trend.  
 Exports  Annual flow  
 
D. Development of the environmental baseline  
To define a baseline scenario for ODS emissions, the relevant drivers which influence the 
remaining ODS emissions in the EU are projected into the future. Projections have been 
developed for 5 -year steps from 2020 to 2050, for each relevant activity that is impacted by, 
driven by, or relevant to the Regulation.  
Table A4.4 Baseline results for flows of ODS linked to exempted uses and banks  
ODS emissions 
source  Stock or 
emissions 
(tODP and 2020  2025  2030  2035  2040  2045  2050  
                                                           
105 Due to the heterogeneity of substances used for laboratories, the total GWP of these substances could not 
be estimated as no substance -level data is made available for any one year.  
 
66 tCO2e)  
Production  Annex I 
substances 
(tODP stock)  52,285  51,930  50,210  48,576  47,022  45,541  44,130  
Emissions 
(tODP)  10 10 9 9 9 9 8 
Emissions 
(tCO2e)  59,706  59,301  57,336  55,471  53,969  52,005  50,394  
Annex II 
substances 
(tODP stock)  22,115  22,115  22,115  22,115  22,115  22,115  22,115  
Emissions 
(tODP)  4 4 4 4 4 4 4 
 Emissions 
(tCO2e)  2,400  2,400  2,400  2,400  2,400  2,400  2,400  
Feedstock use  Controlled 
substances 
(tODP stock)  38,377  36,721  35,136  33,620  32,169  30,781  29,453  
Emissions 
(tODP)  34 32 30 28 27 25 24 
Emissions 
(tCO2e)  203,000  200,268  195,190  190,240  185,416  180,714  176,131  
Annex II 
substances* 
(tODP stock)  22,583  22,583  22,583  22,583  22,583  22,583  22,583  
Emissions 
(tODP)  20 19 19 19 18 18 18 
 Emissions 
(tCO2e)  11,248  11,043  10,842  10,645  10,452  10,261  10,075  
Annex I 
feedstocks with 
potential identified 
alternatives106 Stock  14,612  13,981  13,378  12,801  12,248  11,720  11,214  
Emissions  0.56 0.53 0.49 0.46 0.44 0.41 0.38 
 Emissions 
(tCO2e)  9,638.00  9,054.33  8,506.00  7,990.88  7,506.96  7,052.34  6,625.26  
Process agent use  Stock  283 220 170 132 102 79 61 
Emissions  4 3 2 2 1 1 1 
 Emissions 
(tCO2e)  14,200  11,000  7,050  7,050  3,700  3,700  3,700  
Laboratory use  Licences (# 
no annual 
licences)  1,200  1,200  1,200  1,200  1,200  1,200  1,200  
Emissions 
(tODP)107 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 
Foam banks ** Annual 
release (tODP 
stock)  14,000   14,800   8,900   3,100  
Emissions 
(tODP)  6,000   6,700   5,700   4,200  
Emissions   
(tCO2e)  37 * 106  42 * 106  38 * 106  27 * 106 
Critical use halons  Stock  5,586  5,210  4,866  4,549  3,247  0 0 
Emissions 
(tODP)  42.8 40.2 38.0 36.0 22.6 0 0 
Emissions 
(tCO2e)  26,619  25,017  23,653  22,400  14,095  0 0 
Imports  Annual flow  4,202  4,096  3,961  3,826  3,695  3,569  3,447  
                                                           
106 In section 4.3.1.1, the substances identified by the Evaluation of t he Regulation as having potential viable 
alternatives are discussed  
107 Due to the heterogeneity of substances used for laboratories, the total GWP of these substances could not 
be estimated as no substance -level data is made available for any one year.  
 
67 Exports  Annual flow   15,970   16,272   16,166   16,031   15,896   15,765   15,639  
*For Annex II substances, 99% of production is assumed to go to feedstock use. Imports of Annex II substances are unknown, 
so not included.  
** For foam banks, data is from SKM Enviros (2012)  
 
E. Economic baseline drivers  
Economic impacts  are the baseline costs for businesses and laboratories, Member States as 
well as costs for the European Commission, without any change to the legislation. These 
costs are split by actors and measures that pertain to monitoring, reporting, licencing, etc. 
Some of these costs depend on the outputs of the environmental drivers above, as they 
depend on ODS use and emission projections as drivers of costs. Many economic costs are 
related to administrative costs, which are taken from the evaluation and stakehold er feedback.  
It is recognised that there may be additional categories of costs that may be incurred by 
companies as a result of the policy options, such as operational costs for a small number of 
businesses due to possible requirement of halon substitutes , that includes airlines using 
halons for fire protection or costs of reconversion on feedstock alternatives. These costs are 
included in the subsequent analysis of the policies by looking at the relative change (as the 
added costs for the policy scenarios  versus the baseline of not having such costs).  
The cost estimates are based on data provided in the Evaluation and the related external study 
by Ramboll (2019), which give data on the estimated number of days spent by authorities and 
the businesses acros s an 8 -year period (2010 -2017) on the various actions associated with the 
Regulation. Time series data was available for most cost categories, though for some 
categories related to the time investment from the European Commission, only one data point 
was a vailable. However, for most time series across 2010 – 2017, costs did not change 
significantly, and the average has been used to forecast. The exception to this is costs of 
licencing to business, which decreased sharply in 2014 after the introduction of th e current 
ODS Licensing system and the bulk licence for aviation companies, and stayed at this lower 
point for the following 4 years up until 2017. Therefore, for the costs of licencing, the 
average of the 2014 – 2017 has been used for forecasting.  
For cos t categories for which only time investment was provided, the estimated number of 
days was then used to devise a monetary impact of these costs. The number of days spent per 
cost centre was assumed to be constant over the 8 -year period, and for business st akeholders, 
1 hour of labour was estimated at €40 (consistently with the assumption made in the same 
study in case of businesses), and it was assumed that a person worked 7.5 hours per day. By 
combining these assumptions, the annual cost estimations were p roduced. In the baseline, this 
is done for all stakeholders to provide a full overview of all costs. However in the impact 
assessment of specific options, the costs for the EC are estimated in person -days in line with 
the Evaluation.  
The baseline scenario for the costs has been developed by extrapolating timelines of cost data 
based on key drivers out to 2050. The lack of data over time on some cost categories 
associated with the Regulation has meant that other, secondary variables have been necessary 
to as sess how costs change over time. Each regulatory cost was assigned a ‘driver’ which it 
 
68 was assumed to have a linear relationship with, for example, the ‘registration requirements 
for laboratories’ was assumed to be correlated with the use of ODS in laborat ories. The 
selection of drivers is limited to the information available and thus are primarily an output of 
the environmental impact assessment module (with information projected up to 2050). Given 
this, the drivers used are intentionally broad and are int ended to provide an indication to 
understand how the cost may vary rather than an exact projection of costs.  
Each of the cost components is assigned a specific driver, according to the underlying 
activities performed by businesses, Member State or EU auth orities and how they are 
expected to respond to the expected trends in the baseline (or, how they are expected not to 
respond and could stay constant). For the analysis of the policy options, we have introduced 
additional cost variations, to reflect expect ed changes that these polices will likely introduce 
to the costs.  
The assessment of the environmental and economic impacts in the respective modules is then 
used to assess the remaining impacts  (i.e. impacts on employment are derived from the 
economic impa cts). These impacts are not assessed quantitatively, due to the small expected 
magnitude and lack of quantitative data to underpin any significant changes. Where the 
remaining impacts cannot be directly linked to the environmental or economic ones, the 
impacts have been assessed qualitatively.  
Table A4.5 and A4.6 describe how for each driver used in the economic baseline, the source 
data and how this was projected up until 2050.  
 
Table A4.5 Description of baseline cost drivers for Business  
Description of cost 
 Description of driver methodology used to forecast from 2020 to 2050  
 
Licensing 
requirements  Licencing requirements are driven by predicted imports and exports over the 2020 to 2050 
period. Imports and exports increase in the first 5 years, then very slowly decrease), in line 
with the proxy global chemical industry scenario from the IEA (SDS, Sust ainable 
Development Scenario) for global ammonia demand.  
Quotas  Quotas are expected to go down by up to 16%, reflecting the trend of market concentration of 
actors in the chemical industry, so less entities are likely to interact with the quotas over tim e. 
Registration 
requirements for 
laboratories  Data from the Evaluation is used from Table III.6 in the Evaluation, only the last 4 years as 
costs went down significantly in 2014. Registration requirements are expected to remain 
constant, as there is no hi storic time series available to verify its link to any other driver.  
Reporting 
requirements  Reporting requirements are expected to go down in line with an expected concentration of 
the market, as global economic trends favour market concentration with a reducing number 
of market players across the chemical industry. Costs baseline is from Table III.6 in the 
evaluation.  
 
Table A4.6 Description of baseline cost drivers for Member State authorities and the European 
Commission/EEA  
Description of cost  
 Description of driver methodology used to forecast from 2020 to 2050  
 
Member State Authorities  
Reporting  Totals are taken from Evaluation table III.8, average across 8 years. We then multiply by 27 
and divide by 28 to 'take away' the UK part. This is expected to remain constant in the future  
 
69 Description of cost  
 Description of driver methodology used to forecast from 2020 to 2050  
 
Other costs, 
including 
inspections, 
customs, and 
promotion of 
recycling  Using Evaluation Table III.7, it can be assumed that > 80% of movements came from the 
countries who provided data here. The NL figure from Table III.7 is likely repeated and it is 
unlikely the time would be spend double for "checking imports and exports" and "conducting 
inspections", so therefore this has only been counted once. This total is then upgraded to 
100% and divided by 8.  
Admin cos ts to the European Commission  
Licencing 
requirements  Baseline data from Evaluation, in line with the trend for licences for businesses, costs for 
processing of licences are expected to decrease in line with Annex I import and exports. The 
trend driver is the same as used for business.  
Quota allocation  Baseline data from Evaluation. Drivers are Annex I imports and production. In line with the 
cost trend for businesses.  
Registration 
requirements for 
laboratories 
(LabODS 
registry)  Baseline data from the Evaluation, expected to stay constant in line with the trend for 
businesses.  
Registration for 
ODS companies 
and customs 
(ODS licencing 
system)108 Baseline data from the Evaluation, expected to go down as import and export movements 
slightly decrease every y ear up until 2050. The trend driver is the same as used for 
business.  
IT system (cross -
cutting: licencing, 
registration for 
labs)  Baseline data from the Evaluation, IT system costs are increased by 50% between 2020 and 
2030, in line with IT cost development in the EC. A large cost driver are concerns on data 
security and (personal) data protection. This is not expected to increase further after 2030.  
Reporting 
requirements  Baseline data from the Evaluation, and use a combined driver that includes  the combined 
average of all imports, exports, production, feedstock and process agent reports.  
Phase -out 
schedules109 Costs move in line with the phase out schedule for critical use halons, which is defined by 
use case and quantity in the evaluation up until 2040. No more costs after 2040 as all phase 
out schedules have passed.  
Illegal trade & 
customs  Baseline data from the Evaluation, where the trend is defined by import + export 
movements.  
Technical 
requirements for 
destructions  Data from Evaluation,  expected to stay constant with no evidence to the contrary.  
Technical 
requirements for 
labelling  Data from Evaluation, expected to stay constant with no evidence to the contrary.  
Technical 
requirements for 
leakage, emission 
control and 
related Member 
State 
implementation 
measures  Data from Evaluation, expected to stay constant with no evidence to the contrary.  
Derogation 
decisions  Data from Evaluation, projected using knowledge of prohibition dates for remaining uses 
subject to derogations or future derogations  
                                                           
108 Costs for the ODS licencing system does not assume adoption of the Single Window system, as the 
implementation of the policy option is linked to implementation of the Single Window environment. 
Therefore, for ease of calculation, the impacts of implementing the Single Window environment are included 
in the assessment of the policy option, and not in the baseline.  
109 These costs are associated to critical use banks and evolve in line with the dynamics for these uses in the 
baseline scenario . 
 
70 Description of cost  
 Description of driver methodology used to forecast from 2020 to 2050  
 
General 
correspondence 
and advice  Data from Evaluation, expected to remain constant.  
Ensuring data 
security and data 
protection  Data from Evaluation, expected to remain constant.  
Outreach 
activities 
(meetings and 
brochures)  Data from Evaluation, expected to remain constant.  
Assuring 
compliance in the 
Member States  Data from Evaluation, expected to remain constant.  
Providing access 
to documents  Data from Evaluation, expected to remain constant.  
IT implementation 
costs  Data from Evaluation. The trend is expected to remain constant as this concerns overhead 
IT implementation costs. The expected increase in IT costs is already covered in the IT 
system data row.  
External support  Data from Evaluation, expected to remain constant.  
Admin costs to EEA  
IEEA Admin costs  Costs increase by 25% to account for expected cost increases in by 2030  
EEA Topic centre  Constant  
EEA External IT 
support 
consultancy for 
ODS webform  ODS development cost. As the webform now exists, expected to only need 50% of this for 
maintenance from 2025 onwards. Costs remain the same in 2020 due to data security and 
protection.  
EEA External IT 
consultancy for 
BDR system  Constant  
 
Table A4.7 shows that total costs for businesses are expected to decline slightly in the 
baseline. Although the costs associated with registration requirements for laboratories are not 
expected to change, the rest of the costs are expected to be declining in line with the declining 
overall use of ODS. Two most important cost categories are licencing and reporting 
requirements. The baseline assumes that, with a decline in the use of ODS, less businesses 
will need to apply for licences and report. At the same time, those businesses that still do will 
spend less time on these activities due  to lower ODS volumes (and lower number of 
substances) to licence and report.  
Many components of the costs are projected to decrease, following the trends on declining 
use of ODS in the EU (approximately by 5% every 5 years, following the trends described 
above), so the total costs are also expected to fall overall.  
 
Table A4.7 Baseline projected administrative costs to businesses associated with the ODS regulation, 
EUR 2020  
Description of cost  2020  2025  2030  2040  2050  
 
71 Description of cost  2020  2025  2030  2040  2050  
Total Cost for 
businesses  303,486  303,428  297,391  285,658  274,892  
Licensing 
requirements  113,731  114,836  113,477  110,455  107,608  
Quotas  10,961  10,871  10,511  9,841  9,232  
Registration 
requirements for 
laboratories  47,297  47,297  47,297  47,297  47,297  
Reporting 
requirements  131,498  130,425  126,106  118,066  110,756  
Source: Derivation from Table III.6 in the ODS Evaluation  
 
Table A4.8 presents the estimated baseline administrative costs associated with ODS 
Regulation between 2020 and 2050 for Member State Authorities and the European 
Commission/EEA. These costs are presented in real terms of 2020 currency in EUR or in 
person -days. As described above, the costs are based on the recent cost data primarily 
sourced from the Evaluation. Most cost categories are expected to stay constant or decline 
slightly, due to declining use of ODS. There are, however, some cost categories that are 
expected to increase in the baseline scenario. For example, IT system costs are expected to go 
up, as the result of strengthening data and security requirement s.  
  
 
72 Table A4.8: Baseline projected administrative costs associated with ODS Regulation for Member State 
authorities, the European Commission, and the EEA, in EUR 2020 and days, depending on the cost category  
Description of cost  2020  2025  2030  2035  2040  2045  2050  
Total admin costs to Member State authorities  
Reporting (EUR)  38,133  38,133  38,133  38,133  38,133  38,133  38,133  
Other costs, 
including 
inspections, 
customs, and 
promotion of 
recycling (days)  507  507 507 507 507 507 507 
Admin costs to the European Commission  
Total EC admin 
costs for 
categories 
expressed in 
person days  788 827 825 817 803 768 762 
Licencing 
requirements 
(days)  132 133 132 130 128 127 125 
Quota allocation 
(days)  60 60 58 56 54 52 51 
Registration 
requirements for 
laboratories 
(LabODS 
registry) (days)  73 73 73 73 73 73 73 
Registration for 
ODS companies 
and customs 
(ODS licencing 
system)110 
(days)  63 63 63 62 61 60 59 
IT system 
(cross -cutting: 
licencing, 
registration for 
labs) (days)  168 202 202 202 202 202 202 
Reporting 
requirements 
(days)  52 51 50 49 47 46 45 
Phase -out 
schedules111 
(days)  18 17 16 15 9 0 0 
Illegal trade & 
customs (days)  84 85 84 83 82 81 80 
Technical 
requirements for 
destructions 
(days)  5 5 5 5 5 5 5 
Technical 
requirements for 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 
                                                           
110 Costs for the ODS  licencing system does not assume adoption of the Single Window system, as the 
implementation of the policy option is linked to implementation of the Single Window environment. 
Therefore, for ease of calculation, the impacts of implementing the Single Wind ow environment are included 
in the assessment of the policy option, and not in the baseline.  
111 These costs are associated to critical use banks and evolve in line with the dynamics for these uses in the 
baseline scenario.  
 
73 Description of cost  2020  2025  2030  2035  2040  2045  2050  
labelling (days)  
Technical 
requirements for 
leakage, 
emission control 
and related 
Member State 
implementation 
measures (days)  5 5 5 5 5 5 5 
Derogation 
decisions (days)  40 40 40 40 40 20 20 
General 
correspondence 
and advice 
(days)  24 24 24 24 24 24 24 
Ensuring data 
security and 
data protection 
(days)  19 24 28 28 28 28 28 
Outreach 
activities 
(meetings and 
brochures) 
(days)  11 11 11 11 11 11 11 
Assuring 
compliance in 
the Member 
States (days)  15 15 15 15 15 15 15 
Providing 
access to 
documents 
(days)  14 14 14 14 14 14 14 
Total EC admin 
costs for 
categories 
expressed in 
EUR  213,950  258,375  302,800  302,800  302,800  302,800  302,800  
IT 
implementation 
costs (EUR)  177,700  177,700  177,700  177,700  177,700  177,700  177,700  
External support 
(EUR)  36,250  36,250  36,250  36,250  36,250  36,250  36,250  
Admin costs to EEA112159,163  
In house 
thematic project 
management (€)  142 160 178 178 178 178 178 
Total EEA 
admin costs for 
categories 
expressed in 
EUR  116,450  111,600  116,563  116,563  116,563  116,563  116,563  
European Topic 
Centre (EUR)  39,700  44,663  49,625  49,625  49,625  49,625  49,625  
External IT 
consultancy 
support for ODS 19,625  9,813  9,813  9,813  9,813  9,813  9,813  
                                                           
112 Additional IT costs due to stren gthening of data and security requirements are included under EC IT costs. 
These categories reflect maintenance costs . 
 
74 Description of cost  2020  2025  2030  2035  2040  2045  2050  
webform (EUR)  
External IT 
consultancy 
support for BDR 
development 
and 
maintenance 
(EUR)  57,125  57,125  57,125  57,125  57,125  57,125  57,125  
Source: Derivation from Tables III.7 - 13 in the ODS Evaluation  
 
  
 
75 Annex  5: Detailed information on halon banks  
Halons, which have very high ODP and GWP values, are still used for fire protection in 
certain “critical” applications, e.g. on aircraft and military equipment.  
All ‘new equipment’ and existing equipment in use where retrofit was deemed possible113 
must alr eady be halon free today. For other areas such ‘end -dates’ are still in the future; some 
extend even until 2040. This means halons will be still be in use for the next two decades and 
the quantities needed will depend on the quantities of concerned equipme nt. The use of 
halons could possibly be avoided in two areas, where it is currently still allowed to use halons 
until 2035.114  
New production of halons is not allowed under the Protocol115. Halon users globally depend 
on existing stocks and halons reclaimed f rom old equipment. Current stocks of halons in the 
EU represent only 60% of the amounts installed (2019: see Table A5.1). The data presented 
excludes the UK, which increased the storage of halons significantly (from 90 to 160 mt 
between 2018 and 2019), lik ely as a response from UK -based halon users fearing trade 
limitations post -Brexit. In the period 2015 -2019, 9% of the existing stocks in the EU -27 were 
used on average each year to fill equipment. Losses due to emissions, destruction and exports 
to third c ountries represent another 9% of quantities stored in the same period. Amounts 
destroyed in 2019 were significantly reduced from 2015 levels, but still represented roughly 
20% of the quantities needed to fill new equipment in 2019. The driver for destructi on are 
high transport costs of the reclaimed material. While there are exports in similar amounts as 
those destroyed, there are hardly any imports of halons for critical use to compensate such 
losses. From 2015 to 2019, EU stocks (see quantities “stored”) have shown some variability, 
but have not declined (yet). If future demand for halons cannot be met (including at the 
global level), it will become unavoidable to restart new production.   
Table A5.1 Halon quantities installed, stored, used, emitted, destro yed and exported in/from the EU -27 
(excluding UK) in the years 2015 – 2019.  
 
Quantities  
 (metric 
tonnes)  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  Average  2019 - 
2015  2015 -2019 Trends  
Installed(i)  596.4  861.0  763.2  765.0  719.1 740,9  +21%  
  
Stored(ii)  412.9  450.0  385.5  424.9  434.8  421,6  +5% 
  
                                                           
113 At the moment of drafting the existing Regulation, i.e. 2008  
114 These critical uses are for fixed fire protection systems of (i) engine compartments on military ground 
vehicles, and (ii) normally unoccupied engine spaces on military surface ships. Alternatives are also available 
for the inerting of fuel tanks on aircraft and in lavatory waste receptacles, but remaining quantities used are 
very low for the latter two uses.  
115 Currently production of new halons is prohibited under the Protocol.  

 
76 Quantities  
 (metric 
tonnes)  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  Average  2019 - 
2015  2015 -2019 Trends  
Used(iii) 28.6 42.5 52.1 28.3 37.0 37,6 
 +29%  
  
Emissions(iv) 4.9 7.2 6.0 5.4 3.4 5,4 -30% 
  
Emissions(v) 
(tODP)  37.3 61.1 51.3 40.5 23.7 42.8 -37% 
 
Emissions 
(tCO2e)  23,209  38, 197  31,804  25,195  14,688  26,619  -37% 
 
Destruction 
(vi) 37.9 31.8 4.5 3.0 7.5 16.9 -80% 
   
Exports  48.1 9.3 5.8 10.7 7.3 16.2 -85%  
Imports  0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.4 *(vii) 
 
(i) Missing data: 2015 LV (ca. 1.2 metric tonnes based on following years), 2017 HR (ca. 6 metric tonnes based on 
previous and following year)  
(ii) Missing data: 2015 LV ca. 0t, 2017 HR ca. 0.15t,  
(iii) Missing data: 2015 LV ca. 0t, 2017 HR ca. 0.2t,  
(iv) Missing data: 2015 LV ca. 0t, 2017 HR ca. 0.001t,  
(v) Missing data: 2015 LV ca 0 tODP, 2017 HR ca 0.01 tODP  
(vi) Amounts destroyed are s hown as reported under Article 27 of the Ozone Regulation. In order to reflect quantities 
destroyed that have been recovered from equipment located in the EU, amounts imported for destruction have been 
subtracted from the destruction figures.  
(vii) A trend stati stic is not relevant here. Imports continue to be very low.   
 
Halon emissions are estimated to decline from ca 43 tODP (0.027 Mt CO2e) in the 
period 2015 to 2019 to 23 tODP (0.014 Mt CO2e) or lower116 in 2040 and no more 
emissions thereafter, as all equipment must be halon free by then. However, the existing 
stocks of halon may deplete  due to emissions, destruction and export to third countries, in 
particular as production of new halons is not allowed at the gl obal level. Recent assessments 
carried out by the Protocol’s Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) indicated that 
non-virgin halon stocks for critical uses might not be sufficient to meet the needs from 2030 
onwards at global level. New production, in particular at the global level, could lead to 
additional emissions of these substances with very high ODPs and GWPs. Emissions linked 
to critical uses where there are already alternatives available are estimated to be 6.9 tODP 
annually in the years precedi ng 2035, by when the current prohibitions becomes applicable.  
Fig. A5.2 shows the halon bank split depending on the potential availability of viable 
alternatives. Emissions are forecast up until 2040 using the average installed halons and 
associated emiss ions for the period 2015 - 2019. Emissions are expected to reduce as the 
bank size shrinks in line with different critical uses reaching their end date.  The total average 
emissions reported in Article 26(1)(b) reports is 43 tODP, which is the average over the 2015 
– 2019 period. These emissions is forecast to go down in the baseline, as shown v ia the top 
line in the figure.  
                                                           
116 It is expected that not all equipment will be replaced at the last moment before the end date, i.e. emissions 
may reduce more quickly.  

 
77 Figure A5.2 Remaining size of the active critical use halon bank in the baseline, split by availability of 
alternatives as identified by the Evaluation.  
  

 
78 Annex  6: Detailed information on foams recovery  
A. Emissions from foam banks  
The main source of current and future emissions are ODS banks  in particular from 
certain building materials containing foams blown with ODS. The estimated size of this bank 
in 2010 was 570,000 tODP, of which about 1.2% is emitted each year, which is ca. 6000 
tODP117 or 37 Mt CO2e (Fig. A6.2), which amounts to more tha n 98% of all reported ODS 
emissions. Most emissions occur when buildings using such foams are renovated or 
demolished and the foams are crushed or shredded. In addition, significant emissions also 
occur thereafter, if relatively intact foams from construct ion waste are landfilled without 
treatment, as the remaining ODS gases will slowly leak out over time.118 The Regulation 
requires recovery when it is technically and economically feasible. This is however open to 
interpretation and results in little recovery  activity in most Member States.  
Large quantities of ODS foams will enter the waste stream each year until 2050 , with an 
expected peak not before 2030 (Fig. A6.1).  
Figure A6.1  Estimated annual flow of ODP trapped in legacy materials (“banks”) that is reac hing end -of-life 
each year (in tODP).  
  
Source: Ricardo using findings from (SKM Enviros, 2012)119 
Very significant amounts of emissions, in particular in climate terms, are expected to 
continue from the lack of recovery of ODS from foams during the refurbishment and 
                                                           
117 tODP: tonnes  ODP  
118 Old cooling equipment such as refrigerators with ODS are practically not in use anymore. However, those 
already present in landfills and where the ODS was not removed and destroyed, also contribute to these 
emissions.  
119 SKM Enviros (2012). Further A ssessment of Policy Options for the Management and Destruction of Banks of 
ODS and F -Gases in the EU. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/default/files/ozone/docs/ods_f -
gas_destruction_report_2012_en.pdf  

 
79 demolition of buildings.  Annual emissions will increase until 2030 -35 to almost 6700 tODP 
or 42 million tCO2e, about half of the total amounts entering the wastes stream each year120. 
After 2035 this trend will reverse, but the potential emissions still remain at ca. 4000 tones 
tODP or 23 million tCO2e even in 2050 (Fig. A6.2). This is due to the significant 
contribution of long -term leakage from landfilled ODS foams in the latter years, even though 
the amount of ODS foams entering the was te stream will already be significantly reduced in 
2050 (see Figure y).  The main sources of ODS emissions from insulation foams are metal -
faced panels and laminated boards, with smaller contributions from block foam and spray 
foam. Many categories of insul ation foam remain mostly an uncollected waste stream that 
goes to landfill.  
Figure A6.2.  Expected EU annual emissions from foam banks  
 
B. Distribution of ODS foam banks for EU Member States  
The use of ODS foams in the past was not equally, i.e. based on pop ulation, distributed 
between Member States. By way of example, Eastern European countries have a lower share 
of the ODS -foam bank, as ODS foams were not used nearly as widespread as in other parts of 
Europe. The majority of CFC production was present in No rthwest Europe plus France, Spain 
and Italy. In the period 1960 – 2000, adding insulation to buildings was also more prevalent 
and widespread in Northern Europe. For buildings, the use of ODS in the EU ended in 2003 
for all foam applications. CFC use ended  by end 1994 in the EU -15 and ended few years later 
in Eastern countries. In general, the demolition waste from the building sector  can be 
assumed to contain CFC -11/12 or HCFC 141b/142b, which were popular blowing agents for 
polyurethane (PU) and extruded polystyrene (XPS) foams used.  
This likely distribution of foam banks across the Member States is shown in Figure A6.3. The 
figure does not represent the ODS -containing foam bank itself, but rather it shows the 
countries with the most likely largest contrib ution, based on 2008 use patterns of foams that 
                                                           
120 Most of the remainder will be a source of long -term e missions from landfills . 

 
80 would have contained ODS in the past. In the figure, the blue bars (% of ODS by bottom -up) 
are assumed to be more accurate, as this data is less based on economic assumptions and 
more on real -world data on in sulation foam sales. The figure shows that Germany, France 
and the UK are likely to have the largest individual contribution to the European ODS foam 
bank, but Spain and Italy also have relatively high consumption.  
Figure A6.3.  Estimated ODS bank distribution for EU -28 
 
C. Policies regarding Construction and Demolition Wastes (CDW) in Member States  
About 375 million tonnes of construction and demolition waste (CDW) were generated in 
2016 making it is the largest waste stream in the EU by weight (Eurostat, 2019). CDW is 
defined as a priority area in the EU according to the Circular Economy Action Plan , while the 
revised Waste Framework Directive (WFD 2008/98/EC, amended 2018/851) sets a 
mandatory target for its recovery of 70% by 2020. Despite a high average recovery rate, 
CDW is often down -cycled. Waste management options are ranked in the EU’s waste 
hierarchy. The highest priority is on waste prevention, followed by recycling, energy 
recovery and finally disposal, e.g. by landfilling.  
Despite its potential, the level of recycling and material recovery of construction and 
demolition waste varies great ly across the EU, ranging from less than 10% to over 90%. EU 
count ries apply different definitions of construction and demolition waste, which makes 
cross -country comparisons difficult. The EU main objectives for this waste stream include to 
ensure that CD W is managed in an environmentally sound way. According to the 
requirements set under the Waste Framework Directive, the following objectives exist for 
CDW:  

 
81  Promote selective demolition  to enable removal and safe handling of hazardous 
substances  and facili tate re -use and high -quality recycling by selective removal of 
materials and establishing sorting systems, and  
 Increase the preparing for re -use, recycling and other material recovery (including 
backfilling) of non-hazardous  construction and demolition waste to a minimum of 70 % 
by weight by 2020.  
A separation of ODS foam banks will be less costly in cases that legislation on separation of 
waste (for other materials) already pre -exists. In a recent study (2018) carried out fo r the 
European Commission, existing CDW policies were examined in a number of representative 
Member States: Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, France, Italy, Poland, Czech 
Republic, Portugal, Romania and Malta.121 While all of these countries have trans posed the 
EU waste acquis into national legislation, CDW management is regulated to a different extent 
across the Member States. Except for Romania and Malta, all the other analysed Member 
States have regulations specifically targeting CDW. Thereby, the mo st developed regulations 
can be found in the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, France and Italy. These 
countries include also most of the ODS foam banks as shown in Figure A6.3. The legislative 
framework of these leading countries is characterised by  a variety of legislation specifically 
targeting CDW management  combined with other tools promoting recycling of CDW. The 
most advanced legislations targeting CDW management comprise for example specifications 
on separation and requirements regarding the p re-treatment of CDW, mandatory pre -audits 
on demolition sites, mandatory departmental CDW management plans, as well as quota of 
percentage for recycled materials (including construction materials) and products in public 
procurement and new plants for sorti ng of waste materials  were opened in the Netherlands. 
These plants recover materials such as wood, metals, plastics and inert materials. The study 
also mentions that many interviewees stressed the importance of a favourable and stable 
regulatory context fo r the economic viability of CDW recycling. The recycling of CDW 
would greatly benefit from a harmonized EU legislation that is appropriately enforced in all 
Member States. Today, each Member State has different set of regulations and in many cases, 
there a re even large regional differences.  
D. Feasibility of ODS foam recovery and treatment  
It is more costly to separate, transport and destroy the ODS contained in the foam than 
standard disposal via landfilling without ODS recovery . There are a number of constr aints 
that make effective recovery and treatment difficult and/or costly. These include:  
• Demolition companies may have difficulties to ascertain whether there is CFCs or not 
in a panel, and therefore judge how it should be handled (e.g., whether it can be 
                                                           
121 IDEA et al. (2018) “ Development and implementation of initiatives fostering investment and innovation in 
construction and demolition waste recycling infrastructure”  
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/document/download/099b6bff -d853 -4061 -a15c -58ade46cfe6b_en   
 
82 crushed on -site or not). Building audits are expensive and take time, but are required 
to ascertain level of ODS present.  
• Transportation is expensive per tonne of material handled as ODS foams are 
considered hazardous materials.  
• Foam material with ODS cann ot be crushed on site without emitting the ODS, 
increasing transportation cost for relatively light materials such as laminated boards 
panels.  
• Costs of waste segregation are high for some materials, especially if contaminated 
with bitumen. For laminated bo ards, segregation is required to avoid contamination by 
other substances or building materials  
• The recycling technology may require significant energy input.  
• For metal -faced panels, the capacity of nearby recycling facilities may be too limited 
to process all metal -faced panels  
• National capacity of waste recycling plants is not evenly distributed across Member 
States.  
• Lack of enforcement is a driver for demolition companies to avoid separation of CDW 
fractions and reduce costs.  
The technical and economic feasibility also strongly depends on the type of foam  (e.g. 
panels, boards, spray or block), and where it is installed (see table A6.1).  
Table A6.1 Feasibility of building foams recovery by material  
Material  Current feasibility  Justification  
Metal -faced panels  Medium -High  
 Refurbished recycling facilities that have so far been treating 
old refrigeration equipment can treat metal -faced panels. 
According to experts interviewed122, it is economically and 
technically feasible to recover Metal -faced panels. The Metal 
component accounts for approx. 50 -80% by weight (depending 
on panel thickness) and is easy to segregate and can be treated 
by existing refrigerant panel recycling plants. In this study, the 
recovery of the metal component of panels is assumed to 
already be economically viable, and only the foam component 
is analysed with respect to additional cost. At the moment, 
without a mandate for separation of panels and separate 
disposal of the metal and foam elements, there is low natural 
demand for the use of  refrigerator panel recycling plants for 
this purpose.    
Laminated boards  Medium -Low Laminated boards are more difficult and expensive to recover 
than metal -faced panels. However, built -up systems123 could 
be feasible to recover  since they are easy to segregate and 
collect, and they can be cut into smaller pieces to transport 
and process without losing much ODS content.  
                                                           
122 Interview with UK -based recycling facility owning several refrigerant plants refurbished for metal -faced 
panels, and ex pert knowledge from authors of SKM (2012)  
123 Type of laminated boards easily demountable system primarily used for roofing insulation.  

 
83 Material  Current feasibility  Justification  
 Boards in cavity structures124 could also be feasible to 
recover. Costs in some Member States like Germany, the 
Netherlands or Austria, would be lower due to existing waste 
regulations in place and favourable building practices that 
reduce the contamination level of the materials. There is a 
knowledge gap on the feasibility of this beyond these 
countries.  
Floor insulation boards  are not yet economically feasible to 
recover since they are contaminated with concrete, removal of 
which requires more innovation. In a board, CFC is under 
concrete, hence, it is highly contaminated and costly to collect 
and segrega te. 
Spray foam  Low 
 According to the experts interviewed, spray foam recovery is 
not feasible in the demolition phase . ODS spray foam is 
mainly used in walls and roofs. It was often used on top of 
existing structures for e.g. roof insulation, sprayed aga inst 
surfaces, pumped into cavity holes. When the walls are 
demolished, foams are trapped in the wreckage and it would 
require time - and cost -intensive manual segregation.  
Block foam  Low 
 For block foam, as part of concrete slabs, the recovery is not 
feasible in the demolition phase  as no examples have been 
identified of successful splitting of this material from the 
generic demolition waste stream. For block foam part of pipe 
insulation, recovery opportunities may exist during pipe 
replacement activit ies. No evidence however was identified 
during this study on the recovery of pipe (block) foam in 
practice.  
 
In summary, it is appears feasible to recover about 100% of the waste stream of metal -faced 
panels. They are the cheapest option given their valuable metal component and because they 
can be cut into smaller pieces without emitting a significant amount of ODS being released. 
Thus they can be treated in existing facilities for domestic appliances.  It is estimated that 
approximately 25% of built -up systems and cavity structures (the two sub -types of laminated 
boards) should also be feasible to recover given the evidence of suitable construction 
procedures.  Floor insulation boards may still represent too many technical or economic 
challenges to be a  candidate for mandatory recovery because they are trapped into the 
wreckage in the demolition process and, collection and segregation stage is labour intensive 
and costly. In floor insulation, CFC is under concrete, hence, it is highly contaminated and 
costly to collect and segregate. Spray foam is not efficient to recover as it is expected to lose 
                                                           
124 Type of laminated boards that are introduced in empty cavities of existing panels mainly used for wall 
insulation  

 
84 most of its ODS already in the use phase, making the cost -benefit ratio of mandatory 
recovery very inefficient.  
The industry is pro -actively exploring further o ptions to divert end -of-life foam from landfill. 
Recycling and recovery solutions have been developed and have proven their technical 
feasibility. Raw material prices have been steadily increasing over the past years and are 
likely to continue this develop ment. The cost for landfill is also going up. This will contribute 
to the economic viability of recycling and recovery options.  
E. Economic Impacts  
Economic impacts are assessed only for metal -faced panels, built -up system, and cavity 
structure laminated bo ards, as these are part of the policy option assessed. New evidence on 
the cost of recovery is based on data from two case studies and an expert interview from 
stakeholders engaging with waste streams in Netherlands, Germany, Austria and the United 
Kingdom . The final cost of the option per kg of ODS will be Member State specific, as 
building practices differ across the EU Member States. Therefore, these costs may be higher 
in other Member States than suggested for the Netherlands or Germany (where existing waste 
separation policy means that less additional cost is borne by the recycling plant or incinerator 
to obtain foam material, as it is already separated out and classified as a hazardous mono -
fraction). Abatement costs in Table A6.2 are based on indicati ve prices from the two case 
studies, but are rather moderate in terms of CO2 given the high GWP of the ODS used in 
these foams. The total cost of around 1,978.5 billion € are borne by a high number of building 
owners and/or project developers.  
Table A6.2 O verview of the total costs of the policy scenario, with the materials targeted and the relevant 125 
  Estimate of policy 
scenario abatement  Total cost 
(NPV 2020 
– 2050)  Abatem
ent cost  
Unaddre
ssed 
potential  Estimate of 
untargeted emissions 
(2020 - 2050)  
Material  Policy 
scenario 
target  tODP  GHG (kt 
CO2e)  EUR  EU
R/ 
tO
DP EU
R/ 
t 
C
O2
e tODP  GHG (kt 
CO2e)  
Metal -
faced 
panels  100%                                   
18,200  88,050  447,054,292  24,
56
3 5.1   0% 0 0 
Built-up 
system
s 25%                                    
7,328  42,650  639,445,333  87,
25
9 15.
0  75% 22,000  128,000  
Cavity 
structur
e 25%                                    
6,734  48,363  891,752,000  13
2,4
30 18.
44  75% 20,200  145,000  
Floor 
insulati
on 0% 0 0  -  100%  19,800  151,000  
                                                           
125 It is assumed that 10% content of blowing agent out of the total foam weight  (German Federal 
Environmental Agency, 2012)  excluding the metal cladding.  
 
85 Spray 
foam  0% 0 0  -  100%  5,300  25,500  
Block 
foam  0% 0 0  -  100%  3,800  20,000  
Total   32,262  179,063  1,978,251,625     71,100  469,500  
 
Table A6.3 shows a comparison of abatement costs for metal -faced panels, built -up systems 
and cavity structures, and compares with the estimates made with the abatement costs in 
SKM (2012). SKM (2012) presented these costs only for GHG equivalent, and ther efore this 
comparison is not made for tODP. Based on evidence from the stakeholder consultation, for 
those countries with an available waste stream, technical progress achieved over the last 
decade resulted in a significant likely decrease in recovery cost s compared to the lower cost 
limit presented in SKM (2012). Note that this is known to be applicable in the Netherlands, 
Belgium, Austria and Germany, where the plants from the case studies source their material. 
Note that for metal -faced panels, it is ass umed in this study that there exists a business case 
for the recovery of the metal, and therefore the calculated abatement cost is only for the 
additional cost to separate and recover the foam.  
Table A6.3 Blowing agent recovery cost assumptions (EUR / kt CO2e)  
  Ricardo 2021  SKM 2012  Change (%)  
   Low High Low High 
Metal -faced panels                   
                        5                         25         120  -82% -97% 
Laminated boards  Built-up 
systems               
                      15                        50       150 -70% -90% 
Cavity 
structure               
                       18  50 150 -65% -88% 
 
To compensate for a lack of observed quantitative data on the costs across all Member States, 
the costs for the practice of asbestos panel recovery was examined as a proxy. Compared to 
the foam category of metal -faced panels, asbestos panels are somewhat s imilar in that they 
are still in use as covering in old buildings, and need specific recovery actions to protect the 
environment and human health as buildings are decommissioned. Further, asbestos panels 
cannot be shredded on site to save space in transpor t, similarly to what would be required of 
ODS -containing insulation panels. Asbestos recovery, because of its requirements for 
personal protective equipment, is of course expected to be significantly more expensive at the 
demolition stage than even the cos tliest example of foam panel recovery. Asbestos recovery 
cost should therefore represent a useful worst case upper limit of the segregation and 
transport costs panels with hazardous materials in different Member States.  
The asbestos panels can be given a ”shadow carbon price” by calculating what the carbon 
price of recovery would be, if the asbestos panels contained an amount of ODS similar to 
ODS -containing metal -faced panels (which is about 200 – 220 gram per m2 panel126, 
                                                           
126 Estimate obtained from interview with Insus Recycling  
 
86 equalling about ~ 1 ton of CO 2e per m2, assuming a CFC -11/12 blown foam). The price data 
per m2 panel is available for different Member States. While price ranges can vary by up to 
one magnitude within a country, they are rather similar across the different countries.  
 
Table A6.4 Example  of asbestos removal costs (full process costs per m2 panel) in different Member States.  
Member 
State  Asbestos – proxy recovery 
costs (with landfill disposal 
destination)  Shadow carbon price of asbestos 
panel recovery, if the panels 
contained 220 grams o f CFC -11 
(GWP 4660), similar to metal -
faced panels  
Netherlands  Cost of removal (including 
landfill) 14 – 50 €/m2 € 51./m2 
Austria  € 30/m2  € 31./m2 
France  Cost of recovery: 25 -150 €/m2 
Cost of landfill disposal: 300 -
500 €/ton  € 25 – 153 /m2  
Per ton comparison on landfill not 
comparable due to weight differences 
between asbestos and metal -faced 
panels, and significant additional landfill 
requirements for asbestos  
Spain  Cost of recovery: 100 -150 €/m2 
Cost of landfill disposal: 160 
€/m3 € 102 – 153 /m2  
Per m3 comparison not comparable due 
to weight differences between asbestos 
and metal -faced panels, and significant 
additional landfill requirements for 
asbestos  
Bulgaria  Cost of recovery  36 – 51 €/m2  € 37 – 52 /m2 
 
87 The asbestos recovery costs can be seen as an upper limit to the costs of segregation 
and transport.  Asbestos is generally assumed to be stored in landfill sites, and therefore 
do not have further significant costs after the material has been transported to the site. In 
the hypothetical scenario that segregating and transporting ODS insulation panels wou ld 
cost just as much as segregating asbestos panels (real prices would be much less!), and 
the final destination requires incineration at the prices quoted by Austria, then these 
costs, based on the data obtained in this study, would be about € 75 +  € 153  = € 228 per t 
CO 2e. 
F. Social Impacts  
Research and development  
According to interviewed experts the recovery of foam banks can be expected to spur 
innovation since it will create an incentive to reduce costs of reclamation via research 
and development into demolition and recycling technologies. Based also on the 
experience related to the mandatory recovery from domestic appliances, such a policy is 
likely to result in better and cheaper ways to ensure recovery. Since 2002, the Ozone 
Regulation mandates the r ecovery and destruction of ODS contained in insulation foams 
within domestic refrigerators and freezers  (SKM Enviros, 2012) . Prior to the introduction 
of the requirement, there were no incentives to allocate resources to resear ch recovery 
technologies and the recovery was expensive. However, in order to comply with the new 
requirement, companies invested in research and development to reduce costs and as a 
result, the recovery of domestic refrigerators and freezers which was alr eady proven as 
technically feasible became much more economical.  
In sum, the effect of mandatory recovery of building foams on research and development 
is expected to be positive and significant for metal -faced faced panels and some types of 
laminated boa rds, for which technical feasibility has been already proven. Moreover, 
given that transport costs are high, research and development is likely to be carried out 
by domestic companies, creating added value within the European Union.  
Consumer prices  
The imp lementation of policy option A4 could potentially increase consumer prices, i.e. 
for owners renovating or constructing a building. If new construction in a building site 
must be preceded by incurring in the recovery of ODS from the decommissioned 
building,  real estate prices could increase slightly as a result. However, there is evidence 
in the literature suggesting that construction prices have a low influence on the evolution 
of real estate prices (Martins et al., 2020) .  
The higher demolition costs are expected to be borne by the building owners, as 
demolition companies would pass these on. The costs are therefore distributed over a 
large number of persons and the additional costs compared to the overall costs of 
demolishing o r refurbishing the building would tend to be rather small.  
New buildings  are more expensive on average, and hence mostly bought by households  
with high purchasing power or by companies as office space. Thus vulnerable consumers 
are less likely to be affec ted by such price increases. Moreover, richer households pay 
 
88 high premiums (e.g. for “good neighbourhood”) hence the potential increase in consumer 
prices due to additional costs of recycling, even if realised, would be very marginal 
compared to the final housing price.  
In case of existing buildings , foam removal would in all likelihood only be linked to 
substantial overhaul or refurbishment activities. Conversely, necessary maintenance or 
emergency reparations would in almost all cases not include ODS foams removal. Thus 
consumers with little financ ial means would usually not have to worry about also paying 
the bill for foam replacement activities.  
Employment  
The policy option A4 may increase employment due to the labour -intensive and complex 
nature of the demolition and reclamation processes.  
Currently demolition, segregation and insulation foam recovery processes are largely 
mechanised and are not labour -intensive activities, although there are differences among 
Member States. According to the literature127 it is unlikely that recycling will add lab our 
time (or cost). In fact, in many cases recycling would save time spent on waste 
management.  
Foam insulation recycling accounts for a small part of the activities and it is difficult to 
isolate the current number of associated recovery jobs in the EU. H owever, as an 
example, a representative company for recycling refrigeration equipment interviewed has 
a revenue -employee ratio of 1.8 employees per million € of revenues. This would suggest 
creation of approximately 215 FTEs in the EU for the medium effort  scenario, and 2,377 
FTEs in the high effort scenario.  
 
  
                                                           
127 Kameswari (2015).  Construction and Demolition Waste Management - A Review. International Journal 
of Advanced Science and Technology, Vol 84.  
 
89 Annex  7: List of clarifications needed in Regulation  
- Clarify definition of destruction in relation to feedstock.  
- Add definition of non -refillable container.  
- For non -refillable containers, in addition to placing on the market prohibit 
transport and possession, unless the containers are intended for laboratory and 
analytical use.  
- One incorrect reference has been identified in Article 15(2)(k) to Article 11(5) 
where it should be to Article 11(8) . 
- Clarify the wording of Article 5(3) and make clear that both servicing of 
equipment with controlled substances and any other use of controlled 
substances, except for the uses exempted in other articles, are prohibited.  
- Clarify the links with additiona l airworthiness specifications: Refer to 
Regulation (EU) 2015/640128  (as amended by Implementing Regulation (EU) 
2019/133129), prohibitions to use halons in lavatories from 18 May 2019 and in 
handheld fire extinguishers from 18 February 2020 in all newly prod uced large 
aeroplanes and large helicopters (“forward fit dates”)  
- Reference to Directive 91/414/EEC should be replaced by reference to new 
Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and reference to Directive 98/8/EC should be 
replaced by reference to new Regulation (E U) No 528/2012  
- Replace references to Decision 1999/468/EC130 with Regulation (EU) No 
182/2011131 
- Delete the reference to 15(2)(h) from Art. 17(2)(d), as imported ODS for 
destruction should not be allowed to be re -exported for destruction.  
- Adjust Article 23( 1) so that it includes the specific terms of the obligation to 
limit ODS emissions, including during production, transport and storage and 
prohibits venting  
- Clarify (the obvious fact) that “products and equipment containing or relying 
on ozone depleting substances shall be decommissioned when they reach the 
end of their  life” 
- Simplify the leakage rules taking into account the general servicing ban on 
equipment and the fact that little relevant equipment remains.  
- Delete obsolete provisions.  
                                                           
128 Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/640 of 23 April 2015 on additional airworthiness specifications for a 
given type of operations an d amending Regulation (EU) No 965/2012  
129 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/133 of 28 January 2019 amending Regulation (EU) 
2015/640 as regards the introduction of new additional airworthiness specifications  
130 Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of 
implementing powers conferred on the Commission  
131 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 
laying down the rul es and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the 
Commission’s exercise of implementing powers  
 
90 Annex  8: Measures and Intervention logic of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009  
Measure  Relevant Articles of the Ozone Regulation  
General prohibitions to produce, place on the market or use ODS as bulk or in products or equipment  Articles 4 -6 prohibiting production, placing on the market and 
use of all ODS in Annex I (e.g. CFCs, HCFCs, halons, methyl 
bromide,..) including in products and equipment  
Exemptions from the general prohibition  In relation to:  
Article 7: Feedstock uses  
Article 8: Process Agent uses  
Article 9: Destruction and Reclamation  
Article 10: Laboratory and analytical uses  
Article 12: Methyl bromide emergency use  
Article 13: Critical halon uses  
Prohibitions on trade (import export) unless  related to exempted uses, as well as licensing 
requirements for trade  Articles 15, 17 and  18  
Quota limitations related to the exempted uses  Article 16  
Registration requirements for laboratory and analytical uses  Article 10  
Technical requirements for labelling that are mirroring the exemptions  Article 7, 8, 10, and 11  
Recovery and destruction  Article 22, Annex VII  
Obligations to prevent leakage and emissions   Article 23  
Obligations on Member States to conduct inspections  and have penalties  Article 28 and 29  
Reporting requirements for EU Member States and undertakings (including illegal trade)  Article 26  
Company reporting on ODS  Article 27  
 
91  

 
92 Annex  9: List of discarded options  
A9.1 Discarded options regarding the exempted uses  
 Impose strict maximum limit for use and placing on the market for feedstock 
uses. Such a general requirement, in the absence of viable alternatives, will result in 
a restricti on of the production in the installations where such feedstock is used. This 
may result in relocation of the affected chemical production processes outside of the 
EU, with potentially very high economic impacts. This would not lead to any 
environmental gai ns, as emissions would result elsewhere and very likely under less 
strict controls. For the impact assessment, it was decided to investigate the option A2 
further, namely a list of only those processes where alternatives appear to be 
available.  
 Introduce e missions controls on feedstocks (and process agents).  This option was 
regarded as a possible duplication of emission control systems under the Industrial 
Emissions Directive (IED). Some provisions in the IED already apply to some ODS 
(Annex I) producers, u sers of ODS (Annex I) as feedstock and destruction 
companies. ODS are addressed in some BAT document, but a more general 
consideration there could be useful. The reduction of emissions of ODS (Annex I) 
from feedstock and process agent uses could therefore be regulated further under the 
IED as appropriate, rather than through new provisions introduced under the 
Regulation.  
 Introduce a prohibition date for process agents. This option would likely have 
significant negative economic impacts for the few business es concerned since it 
would directly restrict their highly specialised business activity and could lead to 
closure of plants. Considering the low quantities being used by EU undertakings and 
corresponding emissions (yearly emissions amount to circa 4 -5 tOD P), a complete 
ban of these processes appears not cost -effective.  
 Impose a lower maximum limit for laboratory and analytical uses.  This option 
would have technically constrained business activity due to the limited availability of 
alternatives, particular ly the use as reference material.  
 Require a permit for destruction of halons. This option would require destruction 
facilities to request a permit for destruction of halons including a proof that 
reclamation back to specification standards is not possible, e.g. due to technical 
issues based on the low purity of the product and exces sive costs for multiple 
distillation processes. The destruction facility would have to check the purity of the 
halon in question first, and then either apply for permit (if certain criteria appear to 
be met) or return the halon back to the supplier. Furthe r taking into the account the 
need to issue permits by competent authorities, this option was expected to entail 
excessive costs for the destruction facility and the authorities.  
 Permit the use of mixtures containing HCFCs as an alternative to halons when  
non-ODS alternatives do not exist.  Mixtures containing HCFCs could be suitable 
 
93 
 alternatives to halons for firefighting, as both GWP and ODP are lower, but are 
currently not allowed under the Regulation. However, such an option would not be 
in line with th e current requirements set by the Montreal Protocol, which allows 
servicing only (not first fill) for fire equipment already in use by 1 January 2020 (and 
only until 2030). Stakeholders indicated that the number of corresponding equipment 
falling into this  category might be very low, if existent at all, which is why this 
option was discarded. Should these rules under the Protocol change in the future, a 
flexibility clause in the Regulation would help to capitalise on such developments 
(see option D3).  
A9.2 Discarded options related to emission prevention from equipment using ODS:  
 Align qualification requirements for with the F -gas Regulation  for personnel that 
is involved in handling refrigeration, air -conditioning and heat pump equipment, 
including at the end of useful life, i.e. leakage checking, recovery and 
decommissioning. However, such equipment still containing or relying on ODS 
(Annex I) after 2020 is very small. Furthermore such ODS equipment is very likely 
serviced and decommissioned by the same pe rsonnel as F -gas equipment, which 
would therefore already be sufficiently trained and certified. Close alignment would 
require relevant Commission Implementing Regulations related to the F -gas 
Regulation to be adjusted and, at Member State level, national vocational systems 
would need to be changed to reflect these changes. This appears disproportionate to 
the small remaining quantities.  
 Move (some) substances from Annex II Part B to Part A.  This options would 
mean prohibiting these new ODS except for the exempted uses. The largest 
quantities of these substances are used for feedstock, in which case the option would 
have no effect as feedstock uses are exempted. However, some of these substances 
such as methyl chloride appear to be used as solvents, for whi ch the availability of 
technically and economically feasible alternatives is uncertain. Others are already 
banned for such use under REACH (n -propyl bromide). As there does not appear 
any immediate environmental gains from this option while there might be some 
complications, this option was not retained.   
 Include ODS not yet covered under the Ozone Regulation directly in Annex II 
Part A , i.e. prohibiting them except for exempted uses. This was not retained as 
more information would need to be collected fir st on quantities, their uses and their 
relevance for the EU industry to justify such a requirement.  
A9.3 Discarded options related to achieving more efficiency  
 Simplify the registration system for laboratories. This option introduces de 
minimis thresholds  for registration to lower the number of affected low -scale users. 
However, if the coverage is incomplete and a diversion of ODS can thus not be 
excluded, there seems to be little advantage to the option of abolishing the 
registration altogether and achiev e higher cost savings (option B4).  
 
94 
  Introduce a de minimis  for the annual quota allocation process  that would still 
require annual quota allocation by large -scale importers, but would exempt 
transactions dealing with small amounts. Such a hybrid system wou ld not achieve a 
lot of control or provide an incentive for using alternatives and is due to lower 
savings on balance not preferable to the complete abolishment of quotas (option B5).  
 Add a requirement for customs to close licenses to ensure that the lice nses of ODS 
shipments are checked . This was not retained as this option would add to the 
administrative burden for customs and it becomes obsolete as soon as the EU -Single 
Environment for Customs is operable and mandatory in all Member States.  
 Add requirem ents for customs to liaise with competent authorities where 
appropriate . This was not retained as this option would add to the administrative 
burden for customs and it becomes obsolete as soon as the EU -Single Environment 
for Customs is operable (i.e. cust om offices and competent authorities are connected 
to the ODS Licensing System) and mandatory in all Member States.  
 Add additional labelling requirements.  ODS have to be labelled under the CLP 
Regulation by indicating the name of substance and the hazard phrase that it is 
damaging the ozone layer. Noting that the EU Single Window Environment for 
Custom will include information on the substances of a licence, the requirement to 
introduce an additional labelling scheme appears to be not needed.  
 Establish a barcode system for bulk gases  to allow digitised tracking of shipments 
as a means of controlling illegal trade. As the implementation of such a system in all 
27 EU Member States would likely involve a high administrative burden and costs 
for customs and ec onomic operators of the whole supply chain, this option was 
discarded.  
A9.4 Discarded options related to better monitoring  
 Require emissions data collection from remaining ODS banks by Member 
States. The main remaining ODS equipment reaching its end of us eful life today are 
foams used in construction of buildings in the past. Collecting data systematically is 
difficult and costly due to the disperse and widespread use of these foams. Sustained 
leakage is also expected from landfills, where a requirement to  measure in a 
systematic fashion would  similarly be disproportionate. One -off surveys are 
probably a more appropriate approach to gather such data and do not require a legal 
basis.  
 Add minimum reporting limits for laboratory and analytical uses. This option 
was not retained as it would not be in line with reporting requirements of the 
Protocol.  
 Require registration for ODS suppliers, users and destruction facilities  as well 
as prohibiting the sale to a non -registered entity. This option would involve 
mandatory record keeping on names of purchaser, quantities supplied to the 
 
95 
 purchaser and reason of the purchase. Given the likely additional administrative 
burden for companies, national authorities and the EC, this option was screened out.  
 Add unsaturated hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFOs) for monitoring purposes. 
As some of these substances belonging to this group are already monitored under the 
F-gas Regulation, it seems more appropriate to consider the inclusion for monitoring 
of any other gas belonging to  that group there.  
 Add a criteria based on ODP for an automatic inclusion of substance for 
monitoring. This option would include all substances with a certain ODP 
automatically in Annex II Part B. Inclusion of some ODS that are not yet covered 
under the Oz one Regulation might require reporting by many undertakings that are 
not yet registered in the reporting system. Also, there are substances such as N 2O, 
which have an ODP, but are used in completely different sectors alien to those the 
Ozone Regulation (e. g. agriculture and natural sources for N2O) and where the 
measures of the Regulation are ill suited to address these. An automatic inclusion 
would therefore have unwanted and unforeseen circumstances.  
 
 
 
  
 
96 
 Annex  10: Visual aid showing the links between the problems 
identified, relevant drivers and individual measures to address 
the problems  
 
 
Policy Option 1  
Policy Option 2 : also includes PO1 
measures  
Policy Option 3 : also includes PO1 and 
PO2 measures  
n.b.: Measure A1 is more ambitious for PO2 and PO3, 
compared to PO1, as it also includes laminated boards