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
Date: 2022-04-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Climate Action, European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, export (EU), import (EU), market approval, ozone, pollution control measures, stratospheric pollutant, stratospheric pollution, supply, waste management

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}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL 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 ACT? ........................................................................................................ 20 

3.1.  Legal basis ....................................................................................................... 20 
3.2.  Subsidiarity: 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 AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? .................................................................... 22 

5.1.  What is the baseline from which options are assessed? .................................. 22 
Baseline for environmental impacts ..................................................................... 22 
5.1.1. 

5.1.2. 

Baseline for economic impacts.............................................................................. 22 

5.1.3. 

Baseline for other impacts .................................................................................... 24 

5.2.  Description of the policy options .................................................................... 24 
Review objective A: Achieve a higher level of additional emission reductions .... 26 
5.2.1. 

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 
Improve the efficiency of the Ozone Regulation  while preserving the 
6.2. 
significant emission reductions achieved so far .............................................. 38 

i 

 
 
6.3.  Ensure more comprehensive monitoring ......................................................... 41 
Improve coherence and clarity ........................................................................ 43 
6.4. 

7.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? ............................................................................................ 43 

8. 

PREFERRED OPTION ...................................................................................................................... 47 

8.1.  REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency) ............................................ 47 

9.  HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? .................................. 48 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 50 

ANNEX 2: SYNOPSIS REPORT OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS .......................................... 53 

ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? .......................................................................................... 58 

ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS ..................................................................................................... 62 

ANNEX 5: DETAILED INFORMATION ON HALON BANKS ............................................................... 81 

ANNEX 6: DETAILED INFORMATION ON FOAMS RECOVERY ....................................................... 84 

ANNEX 7: LIST OF CLARIFICATIONS NEEDED IN REGULATION .................................................. 95 

ANNEX  8:  MEASURES  AND  INTERVENTION  LOGIC  OF  REGULATION  (EC)  NO 

1005/2009 ........................................................................................................................................... 96 

ANNEX 9: LIST OF DISCARDED OPTIONS ............................................................................................. 1 

ANNEX  10:  VISUAL  AID  SHOWING  THE  LINKS  BETWEEN  THE  PROBLEMS 
IDENTIFIED, RELEVANT DRIVERS AND INDIVIDUAL MEASURES TO ADDRESS 
THE PROBLEMS ................................................................................................................................. 5 

ii 

 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

2-BTP 

Bank(s) 

BAT 

CERTEX 

CDW 

CFCs 

CF3I 

CO2e(equivalent) 

Consumption 

CTC 

DCM 

EEA 

E-PRTR 

Feedstock 

F-gases 

2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene (C3H2F3Br);  a halon replacement 
in fire-fighting equipment 

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 

Best Available Technique (as relevant to the Industrial Emissions 
Directive) 

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 directly; IT precursor of the 
European Single Window Environment for Customs  

Construction and demolition wastes 

Chlorofluorocarbons. Group of ODS consisting only of chlorine, 
fluorine, and carbon. First generation of ozone-depleting substances 
banned by the Montreal Protocol. CFCs were commonly used as 
refrigerants, solvents, and foam blowing agents 

Trifluoroiodomethane: an ODS listed in Annex II 

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 

The quantity of ODS produced plus imported, minus the quantity 
exported minus the quantity destroyed. Calculation of consumption 
under the Montreal Protocol excludes non-virgin bulk imports and 
exports, as well as substances intended for feedstock and process 
agent use 

Carbon tetrachloride, also called tetrachloromethane (CCl4); 
commonly used as a raw material in many industrial uses, including 
the production of chlorofluorocarbons and as a solvent 

Dichloromethane, also called methylene chloride (CH2Cl2); used 
commonly as a solvent 

European Environment Agency 

European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register 

Any substance that undergoes chemical transformation in a process 
to synthesise other chemicals in which it is entirely converted from its 
original composition  

Fluorinated greenhouse gases as defined by Regulation (EU) No 

iii 

 
F-gas Regulation 

Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 

517/2014 

GWP 

Halons 

HCFCs 

HCFC-22 

HFCs 

HFC-23 

HTOC 

ICAO 

IED 

ISG 

Laboratory and analytical uses 

(Montreal) Protocol 

New ODS 

Global 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 period of time, 
e.g. 100 years for GWP100, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of carbon 
dioxide (CO2). 

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 

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) 

Chlorodifluoromethane (CHClF2). The most common HCFC. used in 
refrigeration in the past, and still used as a feedstock chemical today 

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 

Trifluoromethane 

Montreal Protocol’s Halons Technical Options Committee (sub-group 
of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) of the 
Montreal Protocol) 

International Civil Aviation Organization 

Industrial Emissions Directive 

European Commission Inter Service Group accompanying the 
impact assessment 

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 

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer: 
an international treaty governing the protection of stratospheric 
ozone 

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 

iv 

 
Non-Article 5 countries 

ODP 

tODP 

ODS 

Ozone hole 

Ozone layer 

Ozone layer depletion 

“Developed” countries, i.e. Parties to the Montreal Protocol not 
operating under its Article 5 (the latter defines the “developing 
countries”) 

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 ODP 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 

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 

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 

A large area of the stratospheric ozone layer with very low amounts 
of ozone 

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 

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 

Reclamation 

Recovery 

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 

Reprocessing of a recovered ODS in order to meet the equivalent 
performance of a virgin substance, taking into account its intended 
use 

Collection and storage of ODS from products and equipment or 
containers during maintenance or servicing or before disposal 

v 

 
Recycling 

Reuse of a recovered ODS following a basic cleaning process 

REIO 

RSB 

PCE 

SAP 

Single Window 

TARIC 

TFE 

UV radiation 

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 

Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

Perchloroethylene (also called Tetrachloroethylene or –ethene, 
C2Cl4); used commonly e.g. in dry cleaning 

Scientific Assessment Panel (of the Montreal Protocol) 

European Single Environment for Customs; 
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/general-information-
customs/electronic-customs/eu-single-window-environment-for-
customs_en 
TARIC = Integrated tariff of the EU 

Tetrafluoroethylene (or –ethene, C2F4); used commonly in the 
production of fluoro-polymers 

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 Nations 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 

WFD 

Very Short-Lived Substance 

Waste Framework Directive 

vi 

 
1.  1. INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

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  risks.  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 impacts from saved ODS emissions for the 
period 1988 to 2010 were 5-6 times higher 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  further 
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  Substances  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/resources/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 

1 

 
                                                           
potential  (ODP)  value  assigned  to  it.  Conversely,  the  climate  impact  of  each  ODS,  i.e.  its 
global warming potential (GWP)8, is not mentioned 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 groups 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 often 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”) that 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 (Annex 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 remaining 
exempted uses today are: 

  Use as feedstock chemical10 in the chemical production to produce a number of high-
and 

including  polymers,  plastics,  pesticides 

indispensable  goods 

value, 
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 (CO2), .e.g. CFC11 
has a GWP of 4660, so its “climate forcing” is almost 5000 times worse than the same mass of CO2 (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  chemical  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  facilitating  or  inhibiting  a  chemical  reaction  in  an  industrial  process,  and 
contrary to feedstock use, the ODS remains intact (is not being chemically transformed)  

2 

 
                                                           
  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 
licencing  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 logical 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 Programme for 2021.  

The Regulation has close links to other EU legislation, notably Regulation (EU) 517/2014 on 
fluorinated greenhouse gases, as these 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. 

An  effective  ODS  policy  that  is  preventing  ODS  emissions  to  the  extent  feasible 
remains  crucial  for  the  Green  Deal,  notably  for  achieving  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  emission 
savings will be additional to the min. 55% reductions from other sectors by 2030. 

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 ensuring 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 Electronic 
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 (ePRTR) Regulation (EC) No 166/2006.  

3 

 
                                                           
obligations  and  measures  of  the  current  Regulation  are  fit  for  purpose  and  should 
therefore remain in place (see intervention logic in Annex 8). 

However, the design of the Regulation could be slightly improved: 

Some measures are not sufficiently efficient;  

i. 
ii.  There are minor gaps in monitoring; and 
iii.  There is a need for clarity and coherence with other rules. 

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 technically feasible  at  proportionate costs. The drivers for these issues 
and developments are described below. 

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.  

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  foams19.  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  

Production of ODS (Annex I)   10* ODPt       &       0.06 Mt CO2e 

Raw materials 

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 ODPt        &       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 tODP and in tCO2e. It is calculated by taking 
the  weight  of  emissions  in  tons  from  each  substance  and  multiplying  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 
landfills and where the ODS was not removed and destroyed, contribute to these emissions. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Halon for critical use 

23.7 ODPt      &       0.015 Mt CO2e 

Total Annex I 

Total Annex II  

Total exempted uses & 
production 

Feedstock use  
& production 

74 ODPt         &      ca 0.3 Mt CO2e 

22 ODPt         &       ca 0.01 Mt CO2e 

Banks 

Insulation Foams 

Ca. 6000** ODPt     &     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  foams  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 
estimated 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 proof 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,  the  technical  and  economic  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 manufacturing 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”.  

5 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
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.  6700  tODP  or  43  million 
tCO2e  (between  2030-35),  about  half  of  the  total  amounts  entering  the  waste  stream  each 
year. 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.  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 

8.000

7.000

6.000

5.000

4.000

3.000

2.000

1.000

0

l

)
t
n
e
a
v
i
u
q
e
C
F
C
s
e
n
n
o
t
(

45.000

40.000

35.000

30.000

25.000

20.000

15.000

10.000

5.000

0

l

a
i
t
n
e
t
o
p
g
n
i
t
e
p
e
d
e
n
o
z
O

l

l

a
i
t
n
e
t
o
P
g
n
m
r
a
W

i

l

a
b
o
G

l

)
e
2
O
C
T
k
(

2020

2030

2040

2050

ODPt

kTCO2e

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. 

6 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 ODS listed in Annex II is 
estimated  at  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 indicate 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 limits 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  Regulation  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  Directive  (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 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. 
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 2010/372/EU, updated by Commission Decision 2014/8/EU 

7 

 
                                                           
for these 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 onwards 
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  (CF3I)  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 decline 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 necessary. 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 emissions reduce more quickly if equipment is replaced ahead of phase-out dates. 

8 

 
 
                                                           
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  evaluation  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  efficient  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, 
licensing  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  for 
licenses  for  each  shipment  in  addition  to  declaring  at  customs.  At  the  same  time,  the 
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 
licensing system to be checked and stored, and customs offices will be advised on how 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 customs procedures (temporary storage, transit etc.) to illegally place 
ODS on the market. The current ODS rules, notably the licensing system in combination 

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/general-information-customs/electronic-customs/eu-single-

32 
window-environment-for-customs_en 
33  While  most  illegal  activities  concern  the  related  sector  of  F-gases,  there  are  also  some  activities  reported 
that concern ODS 

9 

 
                                                           
with  the  legal  base  for  customs  controls,  does  not  appear  adequate  in  preventing  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  with  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  from  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  compared  to  the  benefits.  Based  on  the  results  of  the  evaluation, 
import  and  production  quotas  did  not  result  in  any  noticeable  environmental  effects, 
although they proved to be effective at reducing 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 
imported and exported shipment. Given the linking of customs 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 
registration  (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 customs 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.  

10 

 
  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 export shipment data with data 
contained  in  the  central  database.  Based  on  the  findings  of  the  evaluation,  costs  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  slight  decreases  until  2050. 
Illegal imports linked to special customs 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  representatives  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  (Annex  II)  despite  high  amounts  (about 

half of Annex 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 annual IT 
implementation costs (see Table A4.7 and A4.8 in Annex 4) 

11 

 
                                                           
Release  and  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 to determine the relevance for the ozone layer (tODP) and the 
climate (tCO2e)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 identifying 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  would 
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  incompletely 
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 be 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 process 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 Commission’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  

12 

 
                                                           
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  more  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  stakeholders  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 CERTEX/Single Window system is limited as relevant input data such as net mass 
is not provided with the customs declaration.  

  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  States,  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 with 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 binding 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 
controlled 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  Commission  financed  the  group  under  the  The  Customs  2020 
Programme. 

13 

 
                                                           
  Some  time  limits  relating  to  customs  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 prevent 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 climate 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  agreements  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 
requires 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  Member  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)   

14 

 
                                                           
3.3. 

3.3. Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action 

to 

for 

Compared 
licensing 
the  counter-factual  scenario  where  national  systems 
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 measures 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 few 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 ACHIEVED? 

4.1. 

4.1. General (review) 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 contribute 
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. Specific (review) objectives 

Fit for the European Green Deal: 

A.  Achieve a higher level of additional emission reductions  

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. 

15 

 
                                                           
5.  5. WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE 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 linked 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 stocks/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 of ca 6,000 to peak levels of 6,700 tODP (i.e. from 37 to 43 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, emissions 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 become 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  decreases  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 processes are minuscule (< 1 tODP). 

5.1.2.  5.1.2. 

Baseline for economic impacts 

At this stage, the Regulation no longer requires 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. There 
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  

16 

 
                                                           
cost drivers.45 Furthermore, the cost trajectories between 2020 and 2050 are split by type of 
stakeholder  and  by  the  relevant  measures  resulting  in  these  costs,  such  as  licensing,  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 licensing 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 
license and report. On the other hand, registration costs 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  remain  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 annually). 

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  caused  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  projected  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  of  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  confirmed  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) 

17 

 
                                                           
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  aerospace 
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  alternatives  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 employment 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  alternatives  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  generally  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  policy  area.  On  the  basis  of  the  evaluation  findings,  the  overall 
approach  and  main  measures  of  the  Regulation  are  not  put  into  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, in 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 Regulation  to  today’s 
remaining 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  consultations  on  the 

47 Compare findings of the evaluation 

18 

 
                                                           
evaluation  and  the  impact  assessment.  A  number  of  measures  were  based  on  internal 
Commission  experience  of  implementing  this  policy  as  well  as  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  self-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  are 
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  panelling)  as  well  as  more  comprehensive 
monitoring and control. 

  Option 3 includes all measures including those with high (abatement) costs. 

In the following 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  

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3 

Panels only 

Panels &  
boards 

Panels &  
boards 

Policy options 

Measures 
A1 Make destruction mandatory for some types of foam banks 

((sandwich) panels and (laminated) boards, unless infeasible) 

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 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 stakeholder 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 demolition 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 levels: While Option 1 includes 
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 the 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 
infeasible.  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/demolition  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 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
appear to be commercially available.48 This option could include that further processes would 
be added 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  ships.  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  could  result  in  significant,  unforeseen  costs.  Member  States  would  need  to 
ensure compliance. 

A4. Prohibit the destruction of halons 

Destruction of halons will 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 years 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 refrigeration 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  (CF3I)  as  a  refrigerant  (blend). 
Equipment  manufacturers  would  need  to  stop  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:  Improve  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 licensing 
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  authorities  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 licences 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. 

21 

 
                                                           
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 licences 
prior  to  the  import/export  and  the  (partly)  manual  approval  of  licences  by  the  Commission 
prior to custom clearance obsolete. 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 licences. Economic operators would need to only apply for relevant trader licences 
(once a year 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 for 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  certificate  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  Union.  This  measure  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 authorities should monitor goods offered online.  

B3. Special custom rules for ODS 

To be able to better identify illegal activities at lower administrative effort, relevant customs 
procedures will only be permitted for goods sent to particular destination custom offices. 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 

22 

 
                                                           
The  requirement  for  laboratories  to  register  will  be  abolished.  Instead,  suppliers  and 
purchasers should keep records with specific information on the quantities and specific uses 
for five years. This requirement will facilitate  the control of improper use and  collection of 
information for identification of e.g. progress on alternatives. Member States would have to 
ensure  compliance  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  data  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 fire 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 the 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 placed high importance 
on additional reporting measures, whereas businesses were divided on this issue. 

C1. Require reporting on use as feedstock, 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  and  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. 

23 

 
                                                           
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 
requirements 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 facilities 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 by 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  in  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  Release  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 found 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  minimal.  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 anthropogenic 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. 

24 

 
                                                           
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 updated 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 with 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  with  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  for  (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 functionality 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 confiscate 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) 

25 

 
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 that 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 clarifications 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 THE 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). 

26 

 
                                                           
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  Framework  Directive  (WFD)  that  set  a 
2020 Member 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 selective 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 collection and 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. different 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  Austria  and  the  Netherlands63,  recovery  costs  for 
panels  and  boards  were  determined  as  €1050-1200/t  raw  material.  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 roughly 450 million € for Option 
A1(a),  and  an  additional  1.53  billion  €  for  Option  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-installed 
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 emissions (UNFCCC) in the 
Netherlands in 2019 (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  AT,  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 transport 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). 

27 

 
                                                           
respectively.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 Austria 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  an  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  tCO2e.  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  concerns  regarding  costs  of  this  measure.  The  costs  would  in  all 
likelihood  be  borne  by  building  owners  undertaking  substantial  overhaul  or  refurbishment 
activities, as demolition/renovation contractors are expected to pass these on. Thus they are 
distributed over 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 training 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 relevant 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 

28 

 
                                                           
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  therefore  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  listing  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 significant 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  employment  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. Stakeholders 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  incinerate,  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  stakeholders  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  practices,  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 suitable 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. 

29 

 
                                                           
to  be  lower.  While  some  businesses  and  authorities  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 2030 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  of  EUR  15  million  for  vehicles  and  EUR  0.5  million  for  ships.  Assuming  that  other 
Member  States  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 additional retrofitting 
could be at least in the tens of millions 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 authority 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  annual  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 are 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 cost 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) 

30 

 
                                                           
would  add  to  the  benefits.  Good  enforcement  is  needed  to  prevent  a  perverse  incentive  for 
owners  of  halon  stock  to  vent  the  gases  rather  than  recover  them  as  a  result  of  this  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  will  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  States  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 CF3I 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 CF3I reduces the flammability 
of  low  GWP  refrigerant  blends,  allowing  them  to  be  used  more  easily  as  alternatives  in 
applications  where  this  may  be  required.  A  number  of  different  stakeholders  stressed  the 
importance of CF3I 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  CF3I  will  in  the  future  be  adopted  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 halon 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 estimations 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).   

31 

 
                                                           
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 costs 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 customs 
treatment  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  licensing  system  in  view  of  the  EU  Single  Window  environment  for 
Customs.  Industry  stakeholders  explained  that  the  current  system  is  overly  bureaucratic, 
requiring significant paperwork and time for each individual shipment of ODS.  

For  the  European  Commission,  licensing  costs  will  go  down  as  the  number  of  licences 
goes down. Assuming the number of per-shipment licences is reduced 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 licenses. 

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 suspicious 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  system  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 large 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 

32 

 
                                                           
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 

illegal  activities  but 

This  measure  allows  better  control  over 
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 indications 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 
Window  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 customs rules for ODS  

This measure allows better control over illegal activities at moderate costs to importers. 
For traders, logistics and/or administrative costs may increase due to restrictions as to which 
customs  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 States 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 
customs  office  may  limit  the  controls  over  that  procedure.  Furthermore,  consistency  of 
customs  rules  with  the  F-gas  Regulation81  is  important  for  many  stakeholders.  Customs 
would 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  keeping  track 
currently  of  substance  acquisition,  and  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. 

33 

 
                                                           
maintenance of the related IT system. Member States may have some enforcement costs, but 
as the quantities 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  additional  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 allocation of quotas. No additional emissions are expected as the 
necessary control is achieved 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 would 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  such  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  impacts  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 period 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) 

34 

 
                                                           
due to the fact that 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 quantify. 

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.  Annexes  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  cases  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  businesses  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  stated  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  warming  gases  more  accurately  and 

35 

 
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)  emissions  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  immediate 
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 purchases  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 is 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  additional  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  systems  such  as  quotas  and  registrations  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 impacts 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  likely  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  monitoring  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. 

36 

 
                                                           
all producers combined, which totals €6,200 per year of additional reporting costs.86 For PCE 
there  are  only  8  registrants  in  the  REACH  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  measures  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  contribute  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  customs 
alignment  measure  allows  for  better  customs  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  already  complied  with  by 
fluorocarbon producers outside the EU.  

7.  7. HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? 

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) 

Business 

Option 1 

Member 
States 

EC/ 
EEA 

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 

Indirect 
economic/ 
social 

(+) R&D,  
(+) 
Employment
: 215 FTEs,  
(+/-) Real 
estate prices 

86 Assuming 1.5 week per company based on stakeholder feedback 
87 Costs could be higher in some Member States but should be well below €228€/tCO2e (asbestos proxy costs) 
in all cases  

37 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
(++) 
95 person 
days 
savings 
One-off 
costs for IT 
changes 
(++) 
99 person 
days 
savings 
€ 31,500  
IT savings 
(+) 
Savings of 
60 person 
days 
(++) 
Savings of 
up to 320 
person 
days 

 N/A 

 N/A 

N/A  

N/A 

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 

0 

0 

0 

(++) 
€ 50,000 savings 

(0/-) 
enforcement 

(+) 
Savings of 
€ 11,000 

(+) 
Small savings 

(++) 
Savings of 120+ 
person days 
(€36,000) 

(++) 
Savings of up 
to 120 person 
days 

B4 

Abolish laboratory 
register 

B5 

Abolish quota 

B6 

Delay one halon cut-
off date for aircraft 
cargo 
compartments to 
2024 

C1 

Annex II reporting 

C3 

Add GWP to Annex 

A1 
(b) 

Foam bank recovery 
also for laminated 
boards 

A4 

Halons destruction 

B2 

Better monitoring of 
illegal goods 

B3 

C2 

C4 

Special custom rules 
for ODS 

Report production 
emissions 

Report intra-EU 
sales 

(+) 
Better overview on ODS use 
(+) 

Better awareness on climate 
effects 

(-) 
€ 5,500 

0 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A  

 Option 2 (includes also all measures of Option 1) 

(+++) 
Additional 14 000 tODP=  
90 MtCO2e 
[i.e. in total for panels and 
boards (A1(a)+A1(b)):  
up to 32,000 tODP 
Or 179 MtCO2e] 
(+) 
Max 21 tODP and 15,000 
tCO2e annually by 
avoiding new production 
requires good enforcement 
/positive global ODS policy 
implications 

(-/--) 
Abatement costs87:  
€87,000-132,000 / 
tODP 
€15.0-18.4 / 
tCO2e 

(0/-) 
Good re-sale value, 
but (cross-border) 
transport may be 
costlier for some, 
record keeping 

(++) 
(reduced illegal trade) 

(+) 
Better knowledge on 
climate emissions 
(+) 
Better overview of ODS 
trade 

(-)  
More data to 
customs 

(-)  
Less flexibility 

(-) 
€ 20,000 

(-) 
€ 13,000 

(-) 
€25,000  

(-) 
Enforcement 
costs 

N/A 

(++) R&D,  
(++) 
Employment
: 2400 FTEs,  
(+/-) Real 
estate prices 

(-) 
Some 
enforcement 
costs 

(-) 
Follow-up on 
suspicious 
cases 

(-) 
More 
obligations to 
check 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

(-) 
Follow-up 
on 
suspicious 
cases 

 N/A 

N/A 

 N/A 

N/A 

N/A  

N/A 

N/A 

(0/-) 

Update 
EEA 
reporting 
system 

of 

N/A 

C5 

New Annex II 
substances 

(+) 
Better overview of future 
risks 

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 

38 

 
  
 
 
 
investment cost if 
production facilities 
displaced 

A3 

Halons end dates 

(+) 

max 
35 tODP or  
0,044 MtCO2e p.a. 

N/A 

A5 

Annex II RACHP 

(+/-) 
(positive for ODP, but 
uncertain future CO2e 
emission balance) 

(-) 
Possibly higher 
costs for endusers, 
manufacturers,gas 
producers 

maintenan
ce of 
negative 
list 

FTEs 
possible 
(+/-) R&D 
(0/-) 
Consumer 
prices 

N/A 

N/A 

(--) 

 > € 10 
million88 
across 2020 - 
2035 

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 measures to improve clarity and coherence,  aligning with the Protocol (D1-2), with 
comitology rules (D3), customs law (D4-6), the environmental 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 emissions (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 
incurred.  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 treatment sector.  

Option  2  would  almost  double  the  emission  savings  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  reductions  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. 

39 

 
 
                                                           
The overall emission savings of Option 3 are only very marginally 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 smaller additional achievable emission savings 
from  Option  3  may  cancel  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  detrimental  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 as clarifications are included in  all three ambition scenarios. 
By design they all constitute improvements, however their impacts could not be quantified.  

40 

 
 
 
Table 4: Comparison of the impacts of the options  

                                                    Policy options 

Impacts and cost efficiency 

Effectiveness / emission reductions 

Coherence with the European Green Deal 

Economic impacts  

Cost efficiency  

Social impact 
+++/++/+ positive, -/--/--- negative  

8.  8. PREFERRED OPTION 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3 

+ 

+ 

+/- 

++ 

+ 

+++ 

+++ 

-  

++ 

++ 

+++ 

++ 

- -  

--- 

-- 

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 climate 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 destroying 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  measures  are  outlined  in 
Table 5. In addition, two efficiency measures (B2 and B3) aim at increasing customs controls 
in order to control illegal trade more tightly at little extra cost.  

41 

 
 
 
 
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. 

Abolish the registration requirements in 
the LabODS Registry (B4). Reduces the 
administrative burden and IT 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. 

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 

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 

Feedstock, process agent, halon 
and laboratory users. 
Also small savings for Member 
States by avoiding preparation of 
Committee meeting 

Aviation companies 

9.  9. HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS 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 analysis. 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 substances 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  customs  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.  

42 

 
 
 
 
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 presence 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 well as in landfills), regular monitoring of the ODS banks seems difficult to achieve (see 
discarded options).  

An evaluation of the Regulation should be carried out by 2033. 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. 

43 

 
 
 
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 Assessment of the Ozone 

Regulation”. 

B.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

  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  ensured  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 times (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 Staff 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  study  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/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12310-Ozone-layer-protection-
revision-of-EU-rules 
90 
revision-of-EU-rules/public-consultation 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12310-Ozone-layer-protection-

44 

 
 
                                                           
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 gave a positive opinion but also considered that the report should further 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 countries 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  processes,  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 consumers. 
In response, the sections on measure A1 was significantly improved (5.2.1 and 6.2.1). 
In particular, a number of further countries were examined as regards the feasibility 
of foam recovery and destruction. As additional quantitative cost data was difficult to 
obtain,  as  a  proxy  a  worst-case  approximation  using  asbestos  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  sectors,  the  historic  use  of  products  containing 
ODS and existing policies on waste management, including enforcement. 
More information is provided with regards to foams where this is most relevant 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. 

45 

 
  
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  improvements  were  made  taking  into  account  the  technical 
comments  received  from  the  Board,  including  on  how  the  Regulation  links  to  other 
EU legislation, a better description of the envisaged future customs controls and the 
issue  of  illegal  trade  under  the  problems  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  consultation  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.  

46 

 
 
 
 
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 

2.  Business 

3.  Other 

  MS Authorities 
  Customs Authorities 

  Chemical industry including importers/exporters 
  Laboratories 
  Aerospace industry (halon users) 
  Reclamation/Recycling/Incineration companies 

  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 
review-of-EU-rules/public-consultation 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12310-Ozone-layer-protection-

47 

 
 
                                                           
B.  RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATION 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, Businesses 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  alternatives,  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  exist  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, Authorities 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 military 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 prohibition 
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  checks.  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 

48 

 
shipment  regulation  barriers  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 costs 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 positive 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  stakeholder  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 and 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  environment  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 one 
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 transit, 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 policy 

93 
window-environment-for-customs_en 

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/general-information-customs/electronic-customs/eu-single-

49 

 
                                                           
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 Regulation 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 burden 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). Authorities 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 option 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 consultation 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.  Some 
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 

50 

 
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 were 
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 questions 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 
undertakings  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 Authorities 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  referred  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 legislation.  

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  with  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). 

51 

 
 
 
                                                           
Annex 3: Who is affected and how? 

1.  PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS 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 solvents 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 
discussed 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 
requirements)  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,  abolishing  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 in administrative burden.  

52 

 
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 building 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 prohibition 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 Environment 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 benefit 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 

Direct benefits 

Comments 

Reduced ozone- and 
climate-relevant emissions 

Emission saving:  
32,000 tODP for 2021-2050 
179 million tCO2e for 2021-2050 

Administrative cost 
reductions for business 

Annual savings up to  €216,000 

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) 

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 

Job creation 

Up to 2400 FTEs 

Indirect benefits 

R&D 

Innovation on demolition and treatment processes 
for foams 
Knock-on effects on refrigerators recycling 

Recycling, reclamation and incineration 
entities  

Recycling, reclamation and incineration 
entities 

53 

 
 
II. Overview of costs – Preferred option 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

Compliance 
costs: 
Same as 
citizens if 
commercial 
building owner 

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 

Enforcement 
costs for 
Member 
States; 
synergies with 
waste and 
circular 
economy 
policies 

Enforcement 
costs for 
Member States 

Changes to 
IT system 
for EC 

Administrative 
costs: 
Keeping of 
records for 5 
years 

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: 
Minimal higher 

54 

Direct costs 

Action A1   

Indirect costs 

Action A4   

Direct costs 

Indirect costs 

Action B1  Direct costs 

Indirect costs 

Action B2  Direct costs 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indirect costs 

Action B3  Direct costs 

Indirect costs 

Action C1  Direct costs 

Indirect costs 

Action C2  Direct costs 

Indirect costs 

Action C4  Direct costs 

Indirect costs 

Action C5  Direct costs 

Indirect costs 

cost to 
importers   

Administrative 
costs: Cost to 
acquire 
authorised 
trader status for 
importers 

Compliance 
costs: Less 
flexibility on 
logistics for 
importers 

Enforcement 
costs for 
Member States 

Enforcement 
costs for 
Member States 

Administrative 
costs for 
reporting 
companies*: 
total €5,500 p/a 

Administrative 
costs for 
producers/ 
destruction 
companies/ 
feedstock users: 
total €20,000 
p/a 

Administrative 
costs for 
reporting 
companies*: 
total €13,000 
p/a 

Administrative 
costs for 
reporting 
companies*: 
€25,000 p/a  

* Reporting companies include ODS importers, exporters, producers, feedstock/process agent users and destruction companies 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 (EEA) 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 through 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. 

56 

 
 
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 
environmental  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  relevant 
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 assumption 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 controlled substances, with a median of around 0.1.  

57 

 
 
 
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 to 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  agents,  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 
between 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 

Raw 
material 
(annual 
flow) 

Use 
(annual 
flow) 

ODS source 

2010 – 2019 trends (annual or stock tODP) 

Data 
source 

2010 

Trendline 

2019 

Production 

48,100 

Imports  (2015  – 
2019) 

Exports  (2015  – 
2019) 

2,420 

3,609 

Feedstock 

51,200 

Process agents 

952 

59,517 

EEA 

3,900 

EEA 

15,723 

EEA 

38,717 

EEA 

298 

EEA 

Laboratory use 

26 (2011) 

intermediate  years  data 

No 
available 

3 
(2017) 

Evaluation 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ODS source 

2010 – 2019 trends (annual or stock tODP) 

Foam Banks 

2012 estimate at 570.000 tODP 

Critical 
halons 
installed  capacity 
(2015 – 2019) 

645 (2015) 

Data 
source 
SKM 
Enviros 
(2012)95 
Art. 
26(1)(b) 
reports  

626 

Production 

22,946 

20,494 

EEA 

Flow/ 
Stock 

Banks 
(annual 
size  of 
the 
stock) 

Annex  II 
substan
ces 

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.  

Production  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. Exports 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) expressed 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  reduction  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 phased 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 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
ODS-related  variables  to  continue.  The  downwards  trends  shown  in  the  process  agent  (in 
tODP and metric 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 industry, 
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  continue  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  aggressive 
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  correction  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 emissions 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 halons 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 

Raw 
material 

Use 

– 

Production  of 
controlled 
substances 
(2010 
2019) 
Production  of 
Annex 
II 
substances 
Feedstock  – 
controlled 
substances97 
Feedstock  – 
Annex II 

Process 
agents 

2019 
Emissions 
(tODP) 

10* 

Emission factor trends for 2010 – 2019 (annual or stock tODP) 

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) 

Not  reported,  estimated  as  4  (2019)  based  on  emission  factors  established  for 
Annex I substances as above 

35 

18 

4 

0.13% (2010) 

0.09% 
(2019) 

Not reported, but assumed to be similar as the EF for feedstock use 
of Annex I substances 

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%. 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Banks  

use 
Foam Banks 

Critical  halon 
applications 
(2015– 2019) 

6000** 

                 Data not available on a yearly basis 

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 production 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 data 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 produced. 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 forecasting, 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 0.054%.  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  the  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 number 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  levels  may  be 

98 The emission factor of the total bank each year (emissions / (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 

61 

 
 
 
                                                           
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 are 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  process  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  than  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 further. 

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 laboratory 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  laboratory  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 expected 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” 

62 

 
                                                           
agent after it has been integrated into a foam 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 the 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 Evaluation.  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 which 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 halon 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, emissions 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 

63 

 
                                                           
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 Overview of drivers and assumptions for the baseline scenario of relevant parameters 

ODS 
source 

emissions 

Production 

Stock 
emissions 
(tODP 
tCO2e) 

or 

and 

Controlled 
substances 
(tODP stock) 

Emissions 
(tODP) 

Emissions 
(tCO2e) 

II 

Annex 
substances 
(tODP stock) 

Emissions 
(tODP) 

Emissions 
(tCO2e) 

Controlled 
substances 
(tODP stock) 

Feedstock use 

Emissions 
(tODP) 

Emissions 
(tCO2e) 

II 

Annex 
substances* 
(tODP stock) 

Emissions 
(tODP) 

Emissions 
(tCO2e) 

Driver for 2020 – 2050 trend 

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 are reduced in line with production 

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. 

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 there is not enough primary data to uncover a meaningful trend in emissions data, 
this is also assumed to stay constant and is not reduced. 

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 considered 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 increase 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. 

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. 

Converted tODP to tCO2e using GWPs from the GHG protocol (citing IPCC AR5)104  

Assumed to stay constant, in line with reasoning and driver for production of Annex II 
emissions. 

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). 

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.pdf 

64 

 
 
 
                                                           
Controlled 
substance 
feedstocks 
with 
potential  identified 
alternatives 

Process agent use 

Laboratory use 

Foam banks 

Stock 

Emissions 

Emissions 
(tCO2e) 

Stock 

Emissions 

Emissions 
(tCO2e) 

Licences 
no 
licences) 

(# 
annual 

Emissions 
(tODP)105 

Annual 
release  (tODP 
stock) 

Emissions 
(tODP) 

Emissions   
(tCO2e) 

Identified via the uses highlighted in the Evaluation, and the process-specific data 
from the EEA reporting. 

Process agent use is expected to decline significantly.to 25% of 2019 levels in 2040 
as old installations are being eliminated.  

Emissions decline linearly in line with use. 

Emissions decline linearly in line with use. 

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 assumed to be < 1 tODP per year and stay constant in line with licences. 

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.  

Stock 

Identified from the Evaluation support study, Table 38 (Ramboll, 2019).  

Critical use halons 

Imports 

Emissions 
(tODP) 

Emissions 
(tCO2e) 

Annual flow 

Exports 

Annual flow 

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 

Converted tODP to tCO2e using GWPs from the GHG protocol (citing IPCC AR5) 

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 the 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. 

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. 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
tCO2e) 

Annex I 
substances 
(tODP stock) 

Emissions 
(tODP) 

Emissions 
(tCO2e) 

Annex II 
substances 
(tODP stock) 

Emissions 
(tODP) 

Emissions 
(tCO2e) 

Controlled 
substances 
(tODP stock) 

Emissions 
(tODP) 

Emissions 
(tCO2e) 

Annex II 
substances* 
(tODP stock) 

Emissions 
(tODP) 

Emissions 
(tCO2e) 

52,285 

51,930 

50,210 

48,576 

47,022 

45,541 

44,130 

10 

10 

9 

9 

9 

9 

8 

59,706 

59,301 

57,336 

55,471 

53,969 

52,005 

50,394 

22,115 

22,115 

22,115 

22,115 

22,115 

22,115 

22,115 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

2,400 

2,400 

2,400 

2,400 

2,400 

2,400 

2,400 

38,377 

36,721 

35,136 

33,620 

32,169 

30,781 

29,453 

34 

32 

30 

28 

27 

25 

24 

203,000 

200,268 

195,190 

190,240 

185,416 

180,714 

176,131 

22,583 

22,583 

22,583 

22,583 

22,583 

22,583 

22,583 

20 

19 

19 

19 

18 

18 

18 

11,248 

11,043 

10,842 

10,645 

10,452 

10,261 

10,075 

Stock 

14,612 

13,981 

13,378 

12,801 

12,248 

11,720 

11,214 

Emissions 

Emissions 
(tCO2e) 

Stock 

Emissions 

Emissions 
(tCO2e) 

Licences (# 
no annual 
licences) 

Emissions 
(tODP)107 

Annual 
release (tODP 
stock) 

Emissions 
(tODP) 

Emissions   
(tCO2e) 

Stock 

Emissions 
(tODP) 

Emissions 
(tCO2e) 

0.56 

0.53 

0.49 

0.46 

0.44 

0.41 

0.38 

9,638.00   9,054.33   8,506.00   7,990.88   7,506.96   7,052.34   6,625.26  

283 

4 

220 

3 

170 

2 

132 

2 

102 

1 

79 

1 

61 

1 

14,200 

11,000 

7,050 

7,050 

3,700 

3,700 

3,700 

1,200 

1,200 

1,200 

1,200 

1,200 

1,200 

1,200 

< 1 

< 1 

< 1 

< 1 

< 1 

< 1 

< 1 

14,000 

14,800 

6,000 

37 * 106 

6,700 

42 * 106 

8,900 

5,700 

3,100 

4,200 

38 * 106

27 * 106 

5,586 

5,210 

4,866 

4,549 

3,247 

42.8 

40.2 

38.0 

36.0 

22.6 

26,619 

25,017 

23,653 

22,400 

14,095 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Production 

Feedstock use 

Annex I 
feedstocks with 
potential identified 
alternatives106 

Process agent use 

Laboratory use 

Foam banks** 

Critical use halons 

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 the 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. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
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 stakeholder 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 across 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  available.  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 the  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  cost  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 stakeholders, 
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 produced. 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 assess how costs change over time. Each regulatory cost was assigned a ‘driver’ which it 

67 

 
 
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  laboratories.  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  intended  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  authorities  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 expected 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 impacts). 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 

Quotas 

Registration 
requirements  for 
laboratories 

Reporting 
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, Sustainable 
Development Scenario) for global ammonia demand.  
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 time. 
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 historic time series available to verify its link to any other driver. 
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 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Description  of  cost 

Description of driver methodology used to forecast from 2020 to 2050 

costs, 

Other 
including 
inspections, 
customs, 
promotion 
recycling 
Admin costs to the European Commission 

and 
of 

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. 

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. 

Baseline data from Evaluation. Drivers are Annex I imports and production. In line with the 
cost trend for businesses. 
Baseline data from the Evaluation, expected to stay constant in line with the trend for 
businesses. 

Baseline data from the Evaluation, expected to go down as import and export movements 
slightly decrease every year up until 2050. The trend driver is the same as used for 
business. 

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. 

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.  

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. 
Baseline data from the Evaluation, where the trend is defined by import + export 
movements. 

Data from Evaluation, expected to stay constant with no evidence to the contrary. 

Data from Evaluation, expected to stay constant with no evidence to the contrary. 

Data from Evaluation, expected to stay constant with no evidence to the contrary. 

Quota allocation 

for 

Registration 
requirements 
laboratories 
(LabODS 
registry) 
Registration 
for 
ODS  companies 
customs 
and 
(ODS 
licencing 
system)108 

IT  system  (cross-
cutting:  licencing, 
registration 
for 
labs) 

Reporting 
requirements 

Phase-out 
schedules109 

trade  & 

Illegal 
customs 
Technical 
requirements 
destructions 

Technical 
requirements 
labelling 

for 

for 

Technical 
requirements 
for 
leakage, emission 
and 
control 
related  Member 
State 
implementation 
measures 

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. 

69 

 
 
 
                                                           
Description  of  cost 

Description of driver methodology used to forecast from 2020 to 2050 

General 
correspondence 
and advice 

data 
Ensuring 
security  and  data 
protection 

Outreach 
activities 
(meetings 
brochures) 

and 

Assuring 
compliance  in  the 
Member States 

Providing  access 
to documents 

Data from Evaluation, expected to remain constant. 

Data from Evaluation, expected to remain constant. 

Data from Evaluation, expected to remain constant. 

Data from Evaluation, expected to remain constant. 

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 
Admin costs to EEA 

Data from Evaluation, expected to remain constant. 

Costs increase by 25% to account for expected cost increases in by 2030 

IEEA Admin costs 

EEA Topic centre 

EEA  External  IT 
support 
consultancy 
ODS webform 

for 

EEA  External  IT 
for 
consultancy 
BDR system 

Constant 

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. 

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 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
Description of cost 
Total  Cost  for 
businesses 

2020 

2025 

2030 

2040 

2050 

303,486 

303,428 

297,391 

285,658 

274,892 

10,961 

114,836 

113,477 

113,731 

Licensing 
requirements 
Quotas 
Registration 
requirements  for 
laboratories 
Reporting 
requirements 
Source: Derivation from Table III.6 in the ODS Evaluation 

131,498 

126,106 

130,425 

47,297 

47,297 

10,511 

47,297 

10,871 

110,455 

107,608 

9,841 

9,232 

47,297 

47,297 

118,066 

110,756 

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 requirements.  

71 

 
 
 
 
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 
Total admin costs to Member State authorities 
Reporting (EUR) 

38,133 

38,133 

2025 

2030 

38,133 

2035 

2040 

2045 

2050 

38,133 

38,133 

38,133 

38,133 

507 

507  

costs, 

Other 
including 
inspections, 
and 
customs, 
promotion 
of 
recycling (days) 
Admin costs to the European Commission 
Total  EC  admin 
costs 
for 
categories 
expressed 
person days 

788 

827 

in 

507 

507 

507 

507 

507 

825 

817 

803 

768 

762 

system 

Licencing 
requirements 
(days) 
Quota  allocation 
(days) 
Registration 
requirements  for 
laboratories 
(LabODS 
registry) (days) 
Registration 
for 
ODS  companies 
customs 
and 
licencing 
(ODS 
system)110 
(days) 
IT 
(cross-cutting: 
licencing, 
registration 
labs) (days) 
Reporting 
requirements 
(days) 
Phase-out 
schedules111 
(days) 
Illegal 
customs (days) 
Technical 
requirements  for 
destructions 
(days) 
Technical 
requirements  for 

trade  & 

for 

132 

60 

133 

132 

130 

128 

127 

125 

60 

58 

56 

54 

52 

51 

73 

73 

73 

73 

73 

73 

73 

63 

63 

63 

62 

61 

60 

59 

168 

202 

202 

202 

202 

202 

202 

52 

18 

84 

5 

5 

51 

17 

85 

5 

5 

50 

16 

84 

5 

5 

49 

15 

83 

5 

5 

47 

9 

82 

5 

5 

46 

0 

81 

5 

5 

45 

0 

80 

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 Window 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. 

72 

 
                                                           
Description of cost 
labelling (days) 
Technical 
requirements  for 
leakage, 
emission  control 
and 
related 
Member  State 
implementation 
measures (days) 
Derogation 
decisions (days) 
General 
correspondence 
advice 
and 
(days) 
data 
Ensuring 
security 
and 
data  protection 
(days) 
Outreach 
activities 
(meetings 
brochures) 
(days) 
Assuring 
compliance 
the 
States (days) 
Providing 
access 
documents 
(days) 
Total  EC  admin 
costs 
for 
categories 
expressed 
EUR 

in 
Member 

and 

in 

to 

2020 

2025 

2030 

2035 

2040 

2045 

2050 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

40 

24 

40 

24 

40 

24 

40 

24 

40 

24 

20 

24 

20 

24 

19 

24 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

213,950 

258,375 

302,800 

302,800 

302,800 

302,800 

302,800 

36,250 

177,700 

IT 
implementation 
costs (EUR) 
External  support 
(EUR) 
Admin costs to EEA112159,163 
In 
house 
thematic  project 
management (€) 
Total 
EEA 
admin costs for 
categories 
expressed 
EUR 

116,450 

142 

in 

177,700 

36,250 

177,700 

177,700 

177,700 

177,700 

177,700 

36,250 

36,250 

36,250 

36,250 

36,250 

160 

178 

178 

178 

178 

178 

111,600 

116,563 

116,563 

116,563 

116,563 

116,563 

European  Topic 
Centre (EUR) 
External 
consultancy 
support  for  ODS 

IT 

39,700 

44,663 

49,625 

49,625 

49,625 

49,625 

49,625 

19,625 

9,813 

9,813 

9,813 

9,813 

9,813 

9,813 

112 Additional IT costs due to strengthening of data and security requirements are included under EC IT costs. 
These categories reflect maintenance costs. 

73 

 
                                                           
2035 

IT 

2025 

2030 

2020 

Description of cost 
webform (EUR) 
External 
consultancy 
support  for  BDR 
development 
and 
maintenance 
(EUR) 
Source: Derivation from Tables III.7 - 13 in the ODS Evaluation 

57,125 

57,125 

57,125 

57,125 

2040 

2045 

2050 

57,125 

57,125 

57,125 

74 

 
 
 
 
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 already 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  equipment.  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 from 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),  likely  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  countries  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  destruction  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,  destroyed  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. 

75 

 
 
  
  
                                                           
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) 

Emissions 
(tCO2e) 

Destruction 
(vi) 

Exports  

Imports 

37.3 

61.1 

51.3 

40.5 

23.7 

42.8 

-37% 

23,209  38, 197 

31,804 

25,195 

14,688 

26,619 

-37% 

37.9 

31.8 

4.5 

3.0 

48.1 

0.3 

9.3 

0.0 

5.8 

10.7 

0.0 

0.0 

7.5 

7.3 

1.6 

16.9 

-80% 

16.2 

-85% 

0.4 

*(vii) 

(i) 

(ii) 
(iii) 
(iv) 
(v) 
(vi) 

(vii) 

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) 
Missing data: 2015 LV ca. 0t, 2017 HR ca. 0.15t,  
Missing data: 2015 LV ca. 0t, 2017 HR ca. 0.2t,  
Missing data: 2015 LV ca. 0t, 2017 HR ca. 0.001t,  
Missing data: 2015 LV ca 0 tODP, 2017 HR ca 0.01 tODP 
Amounts  destroyed  are  shown  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. 
A trend statistic 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 global 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 preceding 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  emissions  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 via 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. 

76 

 
 
  
  
 
 
   
 
 
 
                                                           
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. 

77 

 
 
 
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 than 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  construction  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  reaching  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 Assessment of Policy Options for the Management and Destruction of Banks of 
ODS 
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/default/files/ozone/docs/ods_f-
F-Gases 
gas_destruction_report_2012_en.pdf 

and 

EU. 

the 

in 

78 

 
  
                                                           
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 waste 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  insulation  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  population,  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 Northwest 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 contribution, based on 2008 use patterns of foams that 

120 Most of the remainder will be a source of long-term emissions from landfills. 

79 

 
 
                                                           
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  insulation  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 greatly across the EU, ranging from less than 10% to over 90%. EU 
countries  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  CDW  is  managed  in  an  environmentally  sound  way.  According  to  the 
requirements  set  under  the  Waste  Framework  Directive,  the  following  objectives  exist  for 
CDW: 

80 

 
 
  Promote  selective  demolition to  enable  removal  and  safe  handling  of  hazardous 
substances  and  facilitate  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  for  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 transposed 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 most 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  pre-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 sorting 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  for  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 are 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 constraints 
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  

81 

 
                                                           
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  cannot  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 boards, 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 

Medium-High 

Metal-faced panels 

Laminated boards 

Medium-Low 

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 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 expert knowledge from authors of SKM (2012) 
123 Type of laminated boards easily demountable system primarily used for roofing insulation. 

82 

 
 
                                                           
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 segregate. 

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  against 
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.  

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  activities.  No  evidence  however  was  identified 
during  this  study  on  the  recovery  of  pipe  (block)  foam  in 
practice. 

Low 

Low 

Spray foam 

Block foam 

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 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
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 options 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 development. 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 boards, 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  indicative  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 Overview 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 

Estimate of 
untargeted emissions 
(2020 - 2050) 

Material 

Policy 
scenario 
target 

tODP 

GHG (kt 
CO2e) 

EUR 

Metal-
faced 
panels 
Built-up 
system
s 
Cavity 
structur
e 
Floor 
insulati
on 

100% 

18,200  

88,050 

447,054,292 

25% 

25% 

7,328  

6,734  

42,650  

639,445,333 

48,363  

891,752,000 

0% 

0 

0 

Unaddre
ssed 
potential 

EU
R/ 

t 
C
O2
e 

tODP 

GHG (kt 
CO2e) 

5.1   

0% 

0 

0 

15.

0  

18.
44  

75% 

22,000 

128,000 

75% 

20,200 

145,000 

100% 

19,800 

151,000 

EU
R/ 

tO
DP 

24,
56
3 

87,
25
9 

13
2,4
30 

- 

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. 

84 

 
 
 
                                 
                                   
                                   
 
 
                                                           
Spray 
foam 
Block 
foam 
Total 

0% 

0% 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 

- 

100% 

5,300 

25,500 

100% 

3,800 

20,000 

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 therefore 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 costs 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 assumed 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 

Low 

High 

Change (%) 
Low  High 

Metal-faced panels 

                        5                          25          120   -82% 

-97% 

Laminated boards 

Built-up 
systems 
Cavity 
structure 

                      15 

                       50  

     150 

-70% 

-90% 

                       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  similar 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 transport, 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 costliest 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 
  panel126, 
ODS-containing  metal-faced  panels  (which  is  about  200  –  220  gram  per  m2

126 Estimate obtained from interview with Insus Recycling 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
               
             
             
 
                                                           
equalling about ~ 1 ton of CO2e 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) 

Netherlands 

Cost of removal (including 
landfill) 14 – 50 €/m2 

Austria 

€ 30/m2 

Shadow carbon price of asbestos 
panel recovery, if the panels 
contained 220 grams of CFC-11 
(GWP 4660), similar to metal-
faced panels 

€ 51./m2 

€ 31./m2 

€ 25 – 153 /m2

France 

Spain 

Cost of recovery: 25-150 €/m2 

Cost of landfill disposal: 300-
500 €/ton 

Cost of recovery: 100-150 €/m2 

Cost of landfill disposal: 160 
€/m3 

Per ton comparison on landfill not 
comparable due to weight differences 
between asbestos and metal-faced 
panels, and significant additional landfill 
requirements for asbestos 

€ 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 

86 

 
 
  
  
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 would 
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 
CO2e. 

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 recovery 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  research  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 already 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  boards,  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 implementation 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 or 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  affected  by  such  price  increases.  Moreover,  richer  households  pay 

87 

 
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 financial 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 labour 
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.  However,  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.  

88 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
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  additional  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 produced 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 (EU) 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 and 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 rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the 
Commission’s exercise of implementing powers 

89 

 
                                                           
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 

Registration requirements for laboratory and analytical uses  

Technical requirements for labelling that are mirroring the exemptions 

Recovery and destruction  

Obligations to prevent leakage and emissions   

Obligations on Member States to conduct inspections  and have penalties 

Reporting requirements for EU Member States and undertakings (including illegal trade)  

Company reporting on ODS 

Article 16 

Article 10 

Article 7, 8, 10, and 11 

Article 22, Annex VII 

Article 23 

Article 28 and 29 

Article 26 

Article 27 

90 

 
91 

 
 
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 restriction 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 gains, 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 emissions 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,  users  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  businesses  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  tODP),  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, particularly 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  excessive  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. Further 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 

92 

 
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  the  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: 

i.e. 

life, 

the  end  of  useful 

  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 
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  personnel  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 which 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 first 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 achieve higher cost savings (option B4).  

93 

 
 
 

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 would 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 licenses 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  requirements  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. custom 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  economic  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 useful 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 

94 

 
 
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 Ozone Regulation might require reporting by many undertakings that are 
not  yet  registered  in  the  reporting  system.  Also,  there  are  substances  such  as  N2O, 
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.  

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

96