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

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}
Offentligt
KOM (2022) 0151 - SWD-dokument
Europaudvalget 2022
i
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
5.1.1. Baseline for environmental impacts ..................................................................... 22
5.1.2. Baseline for economic impacts.............................................................................. 22
5.1.3. Baseline for other impacts .................................................................................... 24
5.2. Description of the policy options ....................................................................24
5.2.1. Review objective A: Achieve a higher level of additional emission reductions .... 26
5.2.2. Review objective B: Improve the efficiency of the Regulation while preserving the
significant emission reductions achieved so far.................................................................... 27
5.2.3. Review objective C: Ensure more comprehensive monitoring ............................. 29
5.2.4. Review objective D: Improve coherence............................................................... 30
5.3. Measures discarded at an early stage...............................................................32
6. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE MEASURES IN THE POLICY OPTIONS? ....................... 32
6.1. Achieve a higher level of additional emission reductions...............................32
6.2. Improve the efficiency of the Ozone Regulation while preserving the
significant emission reductions achieved so far ..............................................38
ii
6.3. Ensure more comprehensive monitoring.........................................................41
6.4. Improve coherence and clarity ........................................................................43
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
iii
Glossary
Term or acronym Meaning or definition
2-BTP
2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene (C3H2F3Br); a halon replacement
in fire-fighting equipment
Bank(s)
The amount of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) contained in
existing equipment (e.g. refrigerators, foams, fire equipment),
chemical stockpiles and other products, including after their end of
useful lifeor recovered and stored ready for use
BAT
Best Available Technique (as relevant to the Industrial Emissions
Directive)
CERTEX
IT system that allows to exchange data (“certificates”) on relevant
ODS shipments between the central EU ODS licensing system and
custom offices in the Member States directly; IT precursor of the
European Single Window Environment for Customs
CDW Construction and demolition wastes
CFCs
Chlorofluorocarbons. Group of ODS consisting only of chlorine,
fluorine, and carbon. First generation of ozone-depleting substances
banned by the Montreal Protocol. CFCs were commonly used as
refrigerants, solvents, and foam blowing agents
CF3I Trifluoroiodomethane: an ODS listed in Annex II
CO2e(equivalent)
The quantity of a gas in metric tonnes multiplied by its associated
global warming potential (GWP). This is used to compare the
emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global
warming potential
Consumption
The quantity of ODS produced plus imported, minus the quantity
exported minus the quantity destroyed. 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
CTC
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
DCM
Dichloromethane, also called methylene chloride (CH2Cl2); used
commonly as a solvent
EEA European Environment Agency
E-PRTR European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register
Feedstock
Any substance that undergoes chemical transformation in a process
to synthesise other chemicals in which it is entirely converted from its
original composition
F-gases Fluorinated greenhouse gases as defined by Regulation (EU) No
iv
517/2014
F-gas Regulation Regulation (EU) No 517/2014
GWP
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).
Halons
Group of ODS containing bromine and fluorine and one or two
carbons. Their production is banned, but existing (non-virgin) halons
may still be placed on the EU market for “critical uses”, e.g. for fire-
fighting on aircrafts and in other specialised applications
HCFCs
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons: group of ODS consisting of hydrogen,
chlorine, fluorine and carbon. Second generation of ozone-depleting
substances. They were used to replace chlorofluorocarbons due to
their lower ozone-depleting potential (ODP, see definition later)
HCFC-22
Chlorodifluoromethane (CHClF2). The most common HCFC. used in
refrigeration in the past, and still used as a feedstock chemical today
HFCs
Hydrofluorocarbons (, F-gases rather than ODS), consisting of
hydrogen, fluorine and carbon. They have been used as replacements
for ODS because they do not deplete the ozone layer. However, they
are powerful greenhouse gases
HFC-23 Trifluoromethane
HTOC
Montreal Protocol’s Halons Technical Options Committee (sub-group
of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) of the
Montreal Protocol)
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
IED Industrial Emissions Directive
ISG
European Commission Inter Service Group accompanying the
impact assessment
Laboratory and analytical uses
Use of an ODS as a necessary component or part of a laboratory or
analytical process. Decision IX/17 of the Montreal Protocol
introduced an exemption for laboratory and analytical uses of ODS
(Montreal) Protocol
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer:
an international treaty governing the protection of stratospheric
ozone
New ODS
Substances listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009,
whether alone or in a mixture, and whether they are virgin,
recovered, recycled or reclaimed. These substances are not
controlled under the Montreal Protocol
v
Non-Article 5 countries
“Developed” countries, i.e. Parties to the Montreal Protocol not
operating under its Article 5 (the latter defines the “developing
countries”)
ODP
Ozone-depleting potential: the amount of ozone depletion caused
by a substance. More specifically, it is the ratio of global loss of
ozone due to a given substance and global loss of ozone due to
trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) of the same mass. CFC-11 is
assigned an ODP value of 1. The 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
tODP
Metric tonnes of a substance multiplied by its ozone-depleting
potential, resulting in ODP-weighted tonnes. As an example, 1
metric tonne of HCFC-22 equals 0.055 tODP, while 1 metric tonne of
halon-1301 equals 10 tODP-t. This is because halon-1301 depletes
the ozone layer considerably more than HCFC-22
ODS
Ozone-depleting substances, i.e. substances that lead to a
deterioration of the stratospheric ozone layer by photochemical
reactions releasing reactive halogens (bromine, chlorine atoms) that
lead to the breakup of ozone molecules
Ozone hole
A large area of the stratospheric ozone layer with very low amounts
of ozone
Ozone layer
Region of the upper atmosphere containing relatively high
concentrations of ozone molecules. It protects humans and other
living things from harmful UV radiation from the sun
Ozone layer depletion
Chemical destruction of ozone molecules in the ozone layer leading
to low concentrations of ozone and more UV radiation reaching the
Earth’s surface
Placing on the market
Supplying or making available to third persons within the European
Union for the first time, for payment or free of charge
Process agents
Substances used in chemical reactions in industrial processes but,
contrary to feedstock, do not undergo chemical transformations
themselves during the process. The applications where ODS are
allowed to be used as process agents are listed in Annex III to
Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009
Reclamation
Reprocessing of a recovered ODS in order to meet the equivalent
performance of a virgin substance, taking into account its intended
use
Recovery
Collection and storage of ODS from products and equipment or
containers during maintenance or servicing or before disposal
vi
Recycling Reuse of a recovered ODS following a basic cleaning process
REIO
Regional Economic Integration Organization. The EU is considered a
REIO pursuant to Article 1(6) of the Vienna Convention for the
Protection of the Ozone Layer
RSB Regulatory Scrutiny Board
PCE
Perchloroethylene (also called Tetrachloroethylene or –ethene,
C2Cl4); used commonly e.g. in dry cleaning
SAP Scientific Assessment Panel (of the Montreal Protocol)
Single Window
European Single Environment for Customs;
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/general-information-
customs/electronic-customs/eu-single-window-environment-for-
customs_en
TARIC TARIC = Integrated tariff of the EU
TFE
Tetrafluoroethylene (or –ethene, C2F4); used commonly in the
production of fluoro-polymers
UV radiation
Ultraviolet radiation: Portion of the electromagnetic spectrum with
wavelengths shorter than visible light. When the ozone layer
becomes thin, more UV radiation from the sun reaches Earth’s
surface and may have hazardous effects on the biospere including
humans
UNEP United 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 Very Short-Lived Substance
WFD Waste Framework Directive
1
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
2
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-
value, indispensable goods including polymers, plastics, pesticides and
pharmaceuticals,
 Use of three ODS as process agents11 in five old chemical plants for specific
chemical production processes,
8
The ODP of a substance refers to its relative amount of ozone depletion caused by it compared to the impact
of a similar mass of CFC-11 (ODP = 1), e.g Halon 1301 has on ODP of 10, so for the same amount based on
weight Halon-1301 it 10 times worse than for CFC-11. The GWP of a substance refers to its relative
contribution to climate warming compared to the impact of a similar mass of carbon dioxide (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)
3
 Use by laboratories and for analytical purposes, and
 Critical uses of halons related to fire protection of specific parts of aircraft and
military equipment.
In addition to the above, there exists the possibility of the emergency use of methyl bromide12
as an effective killing agent for some agricultural pests.13 Destruction and reclamation of
ODS is also still allowed. In addition, to prevent illegal activities and to comply with
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.
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.
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.
4
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:
i. Some measures are not sufficiently efficient;
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.
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
Raw materials
Production of ODS (Annex I) 10* ODPt & 0.06 Mt CO2e
Production of Annex II
substances
Not reported, estimated as 4 tODP based on emission
factors established for Annex I substances as above
(Exempted)
Use of ODS
Feedstock – Annex I 35 ODPt & 0.20 Mt CO2e
Feedstock – Annex II 18 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.
This review seeks to step up ambition without questioning the overall concept,
approach and measures of the Regulation, as it was generally deemed to be fit for
purpose. It also explores how the design of the Regulation can be fine-tuned to
improve efficiency of existing measures and maintain effective control. Many
suggested changes will result in minor improvements without other impacts.
5
Halon for critical use 23.7 ODPt & 0.015 Mt CO2e
Total Annex I Total exempted uses &
production
74 ODPt & ca 0.3 Mt CO2e
Total Annex II
Feedstock use
& production
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”.
6
costs of landfilling are expected to encourage some more recycling and recovery of foams in
the future.
(iii) How the problem will evolve
Very significant amounts of emissions, in particular in climate terms, are expected to
continue from the lack of recovery of ODS from foams during the refurbishment and
demolition of buildings. Annual emissions will increase to ca. 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
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.
0
5.000
10.000
15.000
20.000
25.000
30.000
35.000
40.000
45.000
0
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
7.000
8.000
2020 2030 2040 2050
Global
Warming
Potential
(kTCO
2
e)
Ozone
depleting
potential
(tonnes
CFC
equivalent)
ODPt kTCO2e
7
recent years (2010 to 2019, see Table A4.2 in Annex 4). However, the quantities used as
feedstock in chemical production continue to be significant (ca. 39,000 tODP used in
2019, other exempted uses are 1-2 magnitudes lower; see Table A4.1 in Annex 4). While
these few exempted uses persist for the sole reason that suitable alternatives are difficult to
find, there appear to be alternatives to the use of ODS in two feedstock processes24 and for
the use of halons in some military equipment25
.
 Total annual emissions from production or feedstock use of 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
8
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.
9
the strict EU phase-out schedule for all halon-using equipment has been to drive the
development of alternatives, and avoid that production would risk to be permitted again at
global level.
2.1.2. 2.1.2. Efficiency issues
The 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
32
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/general-information-customs/electronic-customs/eu-single-
window-environment-for-customs_en
33
While most illegal activities concern the related sector of F-gases, there are also some activities reported
that concern ODS
10
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.
11
 The Regulation requires the Commission to allocate quotas and companies to hold
quotas for importing and producing ODS, which result in costs for authorities and
companies.
 The Regulation requires that halons may not be used in the fire protection of
normally unoccupied cargo compartments in newly type certified airplanes.
(iii) How the problem will evolve
 The costs savings potential by carrying out automatic shipment-level controls through
CERTEX/Single Window will not be realised, as manual controls and pre-applications for
licenses would have to continue, even though a better34
control is already achieved
through the automatic checking of all relevant import and 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)
12
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
13
The Regulation needs to be aligned with that Regulation (where it refers to Directive
1999/468/EC) and also needs to be aligned with the Treaty (where it refers to regulatory
procedure with scrutiny)
 Lack of coherence with customs legislation: Better coherence with the customs rules is
relevant for preventing illegal trade in a 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.
14
 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)
15
3.3. 3.3. Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action
Compared to the counter-factual scenario where national systems for licensing
import/exports, phase-outs, and reporting would need to be implemented, the EU level
approach provides much higher efficiency for authorities and undertakings, in particular for
companies operating in more than one EU Member State. By way of example, the trade and
transfer of recovered, recycled and reclaimed ODS (Annex I)43 strongly benefits from the
interconnected EU market and harmonised rules for cross-border movement of goods. As
estimated by the evaluation, the needed additional 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.
16
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
17
cost drivers.45 Furthermore, the cost trajectories between 2020 and 2050 are split by type of
stakeholder and by the relevant measures resulting in 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)
18
fewer orders from customers had been observed recently, while another pointed out that the
simplifications considered for the ODS licensing system (i.e. option B1) would probably
increase the resilience of their business. An aircraft manufacturer stated that the 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
19
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
Policy options
Measures
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
A1 Make destruction mandatory for some types of foam banks
((sandwich) panels and (laminated) boards, unless infeasible)
Panels only
Panels &
boards
Panels &
boards
A2 Introduce a negative list for chemical production processes
A3 Review prohibition dates for equipment containing or relying on
halons
A4 Prohibit the destruction of halons
A5 Prohibit use of Annex II substances in cooling equipment
B1 Require trader licenses
B2 Monitoring of illegal goods
B3 Special custom rules for ODS
B4 Abolish registration for laboratories
B5 Abolish annual quota allocation
B6 Delay requirement for replacing halons in aircraft cargo
compartments
20
C1 Align reporting obligations for substances in Annex II to Annex I
C2 Require reporting on emissions for ODS production and destruction
of ODS
C3 Add global warming potential (GWP) values to Annex I and II
C4 Require reporting on sales and purchases of ODS within the EU for
producers, destruction facilities and users.
C5. Add DCM, PCE and BTP as substances to be reported
D: All measures improving coherence and clarity
5.2.1. 5.2.1. Review objective A: Achieve a higher level of additional
emission reductions
Almost all respondents in the open public consultation agree that there is a need for further
reducing emissions from foams at their end of life. Conversely, for feedstock use processes
where alternatives do not exist, almost all businesses (14 out of 15) are opposed to limiting
these uses, whereas other 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
21
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.
22
The requirement to have an ODS import and export licence per shipment will be replaced by
a requirement to have a periodic ODS licence for each trader stating the conditions under
which the trader may import or export (trader licence). The Single Window will allow per
shipment controls of imports and exports on the basis of data in the customs documents and
an automatic cross-check with the Commission’s ODS licensing system. To complete the
overview, and given the lower administrative burden of the automatic system, the substance
listed in Annex IIA will be included in Annex I, with the only additional change being that
licensing will also be required for this substance. This makes an application for ODS 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
23
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.
24
C3. Add global warming potential (GWP) values to increase awareness of the climate
impacts of ODS
The relevant GWP value for each ODS (Annex I and II) will be added. No additional
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.
25
D1. Update Annex VII on destruction technologies on the basis of Decision XXX/6 of the
Protocol.
The Regulation needs to be updated in line with international requirements, updating the list
of acceptable destruction technologies for different ODS groups. This affects destruction
companies and requires oversight by authorities. All approved technologies by Protocol
parties will be allowed, while the Commission retains an empowerment to regulate otherwise.
D2. Adjust process agent use and emission limits on basis of the Decision XXXI/6 of the
Protocol.
The Regulation needs to be 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)
26
D7. Penalties related to the protection of the environment
This measure is making adjustments on the current Article 29 (penalties) taking into account
that Directive 2008/99/EC on the protection of the environment through criminal law is being
reviewed at the same time as the Regulation. The Commission’s proposal was adopted
recently.58
Alignment with Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 (F-gas Regulation)
D8. Prohibit the placing on the market of ODS (Annex I & II) unless producers or
importers provide evidence 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).
27
tODP or 88 million tCO2e until 2050, which is ca 14% of all ODS in foams reaching end-of-
life (in CO2e) in that period (Option 1: measure A1(a)). If, in addition, 25% of foams from
laminated panels in built-up systems and cavity structures61
are recovered (Option 2 and 3:
measure A1(b)), this would save an additional 14,000 tODP or 91 million tCO2e until 205062,
which is 28% of all ODS in foams reaching end-of-life (in CO2e) in that period. The success
rate will ultimately depend on the enforcement of the requirements and on the synergy with
other relevant legislation prescribing separation and recovery of construction and demolition
materials. There are clear synergies with the Waste 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).
28
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
29
A2. Introduce a negative list for chemical production processes where alternatives exist
The environmental benefits of this measure are uncertain. While the identified processes
where alternatives appear to be available represent 38% of all ODS used for feedstock in the
EU in metric tonnes, they represent only 1.6% of total feedstock emissions in ODP,
according to data reported by industry. The yearly savings possible are 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.
30
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)
31
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).
32
chemical producers that invested in using CF3I to make their HFC alternatives marketable
and safe, as mentioned by authorities, industry and other stakeholders alike.
6.2. 6.2. Improve the efficiency of the Ozone Regulation while preserving the
significant emission reductions achieved so far
The following measures have been conceived in order to maintain (and in some cases
improve) controls at lower costs. Even though these efficiency gains are the main rationale,
there are some environmental gains to be expected for these measures from improved
oversight, such as regards the control of illegal trade, but these are difficult to quantify.
B1. Modernise the licensing system in view of the EU Single Window Environment for
Customs: Introduce trader licenses for ODS bulk and equipment
This measure is expected to lower administrative 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
33
until then. Some authorities expressed doubts on the achievable environmental benefits, as
they consider that the current licensing system is working well.
B2. Better monitoring of illegal goods
This measure allows better control over illegal activities but leads to small
administrative costs for the importer, as the 8/10-digit TARIC code would need to be
specified in the customs declaration for relevant custom procedures, which is not mandatory
so far. There are 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.
34
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)
35
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
36
comprehensively than obtained currently from other sources such as E-PRTR85
there is a
strong environmental rationale for monitoring them more closely. One competent
authority suggested to additionally include (fugitive) 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.
37
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)
Indirect
economic/
social
Business
Member
States
EC/
EEA
Option 1
A1
(a)
Foam bank recovery
Sandwich Panels
only
(++)
up to 18,200 tODP
Or 88 MtCO2e
(-/--)
Abatement costs87:
€25,000/tODP
€5.1/tCO2e
(-)
Enforcement
costs
N/A
(+) R&D,
(+)
Employment
: 215 FTEs,
(+/-) Real
estate prices
86 Assuming 1.5 week per company based on stakeholder feedback
87
Costs could be higher in some Member States but should be well below €228€/tCO2e (asbestos proxy costs)
in all cases
38
B1 Trader licences
Positive due to better
controls with CERTEX/Single
Window
(++)
Total savings of
49,000-119,000
Benefits from
CERTEX/Singl
e Window
(++)
95 person
days
savings
One-off
costs for IT
changes
N/A
B4
Abolish laboratory
register
0
(++)
€ 50,000 savings
(0/-)
enforcement
(++)
99 person
days
savings
€ 31,500
IT savings
N/A
B5 Abolish quota 0
(+)
Savings of
€ 11,000
(+)
Small savings
(+)
Savings of
60 person
days
N/A
B6
Delay one halon cut-
off date for aircraft
cargo
compartments to
2024
0
(++)
Savings of 120+
person days
(€36,000)
(++)
Savings of up
to 120 person
days
(++)
Savings of
up to 320
person
days
N/A
C1 Annex II reporting
(+)
Better overview on ODS use
(-)
€ 5,500
N/A N/A N/A
C3 Add GWP to Annex
(+)
Better awareness on climate
effects
0 N/A N/A N/A
Option 2 (includes also all measures of Option 1)
A1
(b)
Foam bank recovery
also for laminated
boards
(+++)
Additional 14 000 tODP=
90 MtCO2e
[i.e. in total for panels and
boards (A1(a)+A1(b)):
up to 32,000 tODP
Or 179 MtCO2e]
(-/--)
Abatement costs87
:
€87,000-132,000 /
tODP
€15.0-18.4 /
tCO2e
(-)
Enforcement
costs
N/A
(++) R&D,
(++)
Employment
: 2400 FTEs,
(+/-) Real
estate prices
A4 Halons destruction
(+)
Max 21 tODP and 15,000
tCO2e annually by
avoiding new production
requires good enforcement
/positive global ODS policy
implications
(0/-)
Good re-sale value,
but (cross-border)
transport may be
costlier for some,
record keeping
(-)
Some
enforcement
costs
N/A N/A
B2
Better monitoring of
illegal goods
(++)
(reduced illegal trade)
(-)
More data to
customs
(-)
Follow-up on
suspicious
cases
(-)
Follow-up
on
suspicious
cases
N/A
B3
Special custom rules
for ODS
(-)
Less flexibility
(-)
More
obligations to
check
N/A N/A
C2
Report production
emissions
(+)
Better knowledge on
climate emissions
(-)
€ 20,000
N/A N/A N/A
C4
Report intra-EU
sales
(+)
Better overview of ODS
trade
(-)
€ 13,000
N/A N/A N/A
C5
New Annex II
substances
(+)
Better overview of future
risks
(-)
€25,000
N/A
(0/-)
Update of
EEA
reporting
system
N/A
Option 3 (includes also all measures of Options 1 & 2)
A2
Feedstock negative
list
(+/-)
(highly uncertain benefits)
(---)
Potentially high
impact, > €100
million capital
(-)
€ 4,000
(-)
Up to
€10,000
for
(- --)
Employment
: Loss of
several 1000
39
investment cost if
production facilities
displaced
maintenan
ce of
negative
list
FTEs
possible
(+/-) R&D
(0/-)
Consumer
prices
A3 Halons end dates
(+)
max
35 tODP or
0,044 MtCO2e p.a.
N/A
(--)
> € 10
million88
across 2020 -
2035
N/A N/A
A5 Annex II RACHP
(+/-)
(positive for ODP, but
uncertain future CO2e
emission balance)
(-)
Possibly higher
costs for endusers,
manufacturers,gas
producers
N/A N/A N/A
Legend: Scale applied is +++,++,+,0,-,--,--- (very high/positive to very low/negative); Corresponding colour
codes are dark/medium/light red, yellow (neutral), light/medium/dark green
All 3 Options include the 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.
40
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.
41
Table 4: Comparison of the impacts of the options
Policy options
Impacts and cost efficiency
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Effectiveness / emission reductions + +++ +++
Coherence with the European Green Deal + +++ ++
Economic impacts +/- - - -
Cost efficiency ++ ++ ---
Social impact + ++ --
+++/++/+ positive, -/--/--- negative
8. 8. PREFERRED OPTION
The preferred option is Option 2. It achieves significantly more emission savings than the
low cost option and is therefore more coherent with the European Green Deal than Option 1
(See Table 4). Moreover, compared to the forecasted costs in the EU long term strategy
needed to reach 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.
42
Table 5. Refit costs savings of the preferred option
REFIT Cost Savings – Preferred Option(s)
Description Amount Comments
Implementation of a trader licence (B1).
Businesses apply for trade licences
instead of per-shipment licences to
reduce administrative costs.
Undertakings: €49,000-
119,000 per year
EC: 95 person days per year
Non-aviation importers and
exporters are the recipient of the
recurrent cost saving.
Abolish the registration requirements in
the LabODS Registry (B4). Reduces the
administrative burden and IT costs.
Undertakings: €50.000 per
year;
EC: annual 99 person days +
€31.500 IT maintenance
and development costs
Laboratories and other entities
(including SMEs)
EC: annual 72 person days for
processing registrations: 27
person days on the IT system;
Abolish annual allocation of quota by
Commission Decisions (B5). Reduces the
administrative burden.
Undertakings: €11.000 per
year
EC: 60 person days per year
Feedstock, process agent, halon
and laboratory users.
Also small savings for Member
States by avoiding preparation of
Committee meeting
Delay a halon cut-off date for newly type
approved aircraft to prevent
administrative costs for individual
derogations requests and Commission
Decisions (B6).
Undertakings: up to
€36,000 in total;
Member States: up to 120
person days in total;
EC: up to 320 person days
in total
Aviation companies
9. 9. HOW WILL ACTUAL 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.
43
The enforcement of the recovery of foam banks would be in the hands of the competent
Member State authorities. There are synergies with national waste regulations that may
already monitor the 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.
44
Annex 1: Procedural information
1. LEAD DG, DeCIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES
 Lead Directorate-General (DG) of the European Commission: DG Climate Action (DG
CLIMA).
 The ODS Regulation was selected for the REFIT programme. The preceding evaluation
has been carried out by Unit A2 - Climate Finance, Mainstreaming, Montreal Protocol.
The result can be found here:
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/default/files/ozone/docs/swd_2019_406_en.pdf
 Decide Planning reference: PLAN/2019/927 “Impact 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
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12310-Ozone-layer-protection-
revision-of-EU-rules/public-consultation
45
C. CONSULTATION OF THE RSB
The draft impact assessment was submitted to the Board on 2 June 2021.
The meeting with the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) took place on 30 June 2021.
The Board 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.
46
This section was improved and inconsistencies avoided, in particular in overview
tables 3 and 4. Annex 10 was updated to clearly illustrate which measures belong to
the three options. The selection of the preferred Option 2 was better justified.
A number of additional 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.
47
Annex 2: Synopsis report of stakeholder consultations
A. INTRODUCTION
This report summarises the results of the consultation activities carried out for the Impact
Assessment for amending Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 on substances that deplete the
ozone layer (ODS Regulation).
The consultation aimed to capture feedback from industry, public authorities and civil society
through:
 An inception impact assessment91
(IIA), for which the feedback period ran in March
- April 2020. 4 responses were received.
 A public consultation92
(OPC) that ran in July - November 2020. 34 respondents
replied.
 A targeted stakeholder consultation (TSC) that was tailored to ODS businesses,
NGOs and public authorities and involved 42 stakeholders.
 An online stakeholder workshop held on 26 February 2021 to present preliminary
results of the impact assessment and ask for stakeholder input on existing data gaps.
66 stakeholders participated. 12 organisations provided written feedback after the
event.
Key stakeholders in the processes were:
1. Authority
 MS Authorities
 Customs Authorities
2. Business
 Chemical industry including importers/exporters
 Laboratories
 Aerospace industry (halon users)
 Reclamation/Recycling/Incineration companies
3. Other
 EU bodies (e.g. European Aviation Safety
Agency)
 EU citizens
 Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs)
 International organisations including technical
panels of the Montreal Protocol
91 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12310-Ozone-layer-protection-
revision-of-EU-rules
92
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12310-Ozone-layer-protection-
review-of-EU-rules/public-consultation
48
B. RESULTS OF THE 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
49
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 https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/general-information-customs/electronic-customs/eu-single-
window-environment-for-customs_en
50
option might enhance monitoring of shipments to some extent and therefore decrease illegal
trade. A business welcomed possible improvements envisaged by enabling better custom
controls, but mentioned the need to ensure consistency between the 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
51
be at most minor. However some Businesses mentioned that this option would introduce
double regulation due to existing reporting obligations under the Industrial Emissions
Directive (IED) and European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR). One
Business estimated no increase in costs, whereas two Businesses indicated higher costs
corresponding to 1-2 and 1-5 additional working days per year. Environmental benefits 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).
52
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.
53
For category 5, the policy option A1 (foams) would represent some compliance costs for the
owners, though the extent depends on the national regulatory background (i.e. waste
legislation), will be shared by a large number of 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 Comments
Direct benefits
Reduced ozone- and
climate-relevant emissions
Emission saving:
32,000 tODP for 2021-2050
179 million tCO2e for 2021-2050
Almost exclusively from action on foams
(option A1),
in addition some contributions from better
controls and monitoring (options B1, B2,
B3, C1, C2, C4) and prohibiting halon
destruction (A4)
Administrative cost
reductions for business
Annual savings up to €216,000 For business, mostly from efficiency options
Affects importers/exporters (B1, B5),
laboratories and other entities doing analysis
(B4), chemical industry (B1, B5) and
aviation companies (B6)
Administrative cost
reductions for authorities
Savings:
694 person days/a up until 2024, 254 person
days/a from 2024 onwards;
Annual IT costs of €31,500
EC: 574 person days/a until 2024, 254
person days/a thereafter,
plus annual IT costs of €31,500
Member States: 120 person days until 2024
Indirect benefits
Job creation Up to 2400 FTEs Recycling, reclamation and incineration
entities
R&D Innovation on demolition and treatment processes
for foams
Knock-on effects on refrigerators recycling
Recycling, reclamation and incineration
entities
54
II. Overview of costs – Preferred option
Citizens/Consumers Businesses Administrations
One-off Recurrent One-off Recurrent One-off Recurrent
Action A1
Direct costs
Compliance costs:
Higher costs to
building owners.
Costs include:
Recovery: ca. €
1050-1200/t;
incineration
€2500-3500/t;
Total costs: 1.98
billion €
distributed over a
high number of
owners;
Abatement costs:
€25,000–132,000 /
tODP or
5.1-18.4 tCO2e
Compliance
costs:
Same as
citizens if
commercial
building owner
Indirect costs Enforcement
costs for
Member
States;
synergies with
waste and
circular
economy
policies
Action A4
Direct costs
Compliance
costs:
Halon
equipment
owner (e.g.
aviation
company,
military etc.)
Costs may arise
if transport,
reclamation and
sale is higher
than destruction
Administrative
costs:
Keeping of
records for 5
years
Indirect costs Enforcement
costs for
Member States
Action B1 Direct costs
Indirect costs Changes to
IT system
for EC
Action B2 Direct costs Administrative
costs:
Minimal higher
55
cost to
importers
Indirect costs Enforcement
costs for
Member States
Action B3 Direct costs
Indirect costs Administrative
costs: Cost to
acquire
authorised
trader status for
importers
Compliance
costs: Less
flexibility on
logistics for
importers
Enforcement
costs for
Member States
Action C1 Direct costs Administrative
costs for
reporting
companies*:
total €5,500 p/a
Indirect costs
Action C2 Direct costs Administrative
costs for
producers/
destruction
companies/
feedstock users:
total €20,000
p/a
Indirect costs
Action C4 Direct costs Administrative
costs for
reporting
companies*:
total €13,000
p/a
Indirect costs
Action C5 Direct costs Administrative
costs for
reporting
companies*:
€25,000 p/a
Indirect costs
* Reporting companies include ODS importers, exporters, producers, feedstock/process agent users and destruction companies
56
Annex 4: Analytical methods
A. Data sources
The input data for modelling future developments of the baseline and the policy options relies
on recent data on relevant parameters at substance level for the years 2010-2019. It was
developed using data from:
• The European Environment Agency (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.
57
Figure A4.1 Overview of the impact assessment model
Historical data and relevant drivers define the future development of the relevant
environmental variables that the Ozone Regulation is targeting. The basis for estimating
future emissions is the estimated developments of production, trade, uses and stocks/banks of
ODS, from which emissions can occur, in addition to the relevant emission factors. The
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.
58
2. Contributing to climate change due to some ODS also having high GWP and long
atmospheric lifetimes.
Both of these environmental impacts are within the remit of the Regulation, which states that
action has 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
ODS source 2010 – 2019 trends (annual or stock tODP)
Data
source
2010 Trendline 2019
Raw
material
(annual
flow)
Production 48,100 59,517 EEA
Imports (2015 –
2019)
2,420 3,900 EEA
Exports (2015 –
2019)
3,609 15,723 EEA
Use
(annual
flow)
Feedstock 51,200 38,717 EEA
Process agents 952 298 EEA
Laboratory use 26 (2011)
No intermediate years data
available
3
(2017)
Evaluation
59
Flow/
Stock
ODS source 2010 – 2019 trends (annual or stock tODP)
Data
source
Banks
(annual
size of
the
stock)
Foam Banks 2012 estimate at 570.000 tODP
SKM
Enviros
(2012)95
Critical halons
installed capacity
(2015 – 2019)
645 (2015) 626
Art.
26(1)(b)
reports
Annex II
substan
ces
Production 22,946 20,494 EEA
Feedstock use 22,831 20,391 Evaluation
In the EU, ODS are produced and imported for use by chemical industry (i.e. feedstock use,
process agent sue), laboratory use, and for export outside the EU. Currently, only the
chemical industry is using ODS in large quantities, mostly as feedstock.
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
60
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
2019
Emissions
(tODP)
Emission factor trends for 2010 – 2019 (annual or stock tODP)
Raw
material
Production of
controlled
substances
(2010 –
2019)
10*
No reliable data on trends available, as data is only
reported voluntarily with varying sample size of < 10% of
production. Based on the latter, emission rates declined
from 0.12% in 2010
0.02%
(2019)
Production of
Annex II
substances
Not reported, estimated as 4 (2019) based on emission factors established for
Annex I substances as above
Use
Feedstock –
controlled
substances97
35 0.13% (2010)
0.09%
(2019)
Feedstock –
Annex II
18
Not reported, but assumed to be similar as the EF for feedstock use
of Annex I substances
Process
agents
4 11.78% (2010)
1.29%
(2019)
Laboratory < 1 Not available
97
Reported data for feedstock emissions is self-reported by industry, and may be underestimated, as the
emission factor of 0.09% is below the lower value of the expected range of feedstock emissions at 0.1 – 4%.
61
use
Banks
Foam Banks 6000** Data not available on a yearly basis
Critical halon
applications
(2015– 2019)
22.6 0.75% (2015)98 0.37%
(2019)
* Extrapolated value based on available data for 10% of the total production
** value from SKM (2012)
In the chemical industry, there are several uses with non-zero emission factors that are
expected to continue into the future, including emissions from production, feedstock use, and
process agent use.
Raw material: Production emissions. The annual 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
62
higher. For emissions from production there is no reporting requirement, and emissions
estimates and their trends are based on only 10% of production.
Emissions from feedstock use are therefore largely dependent on the total amount of ODS
used for feedstocks. The same assumptions was made for the use of Annex II gases as
feedstock.
Process agent use emissions. ODS used as process agents may escape during the production
process. In contrast to feedstock uses, ODS that are used as process agents 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”
63
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
64
remaining estimated emissions bank remaining in 2020 is near zero102
. Evidence exists from
Poland that there is a remaining bank of ~83 tons of CFCs and HCFCs in containers holding
3 kg ODS or more. Even when extrapolating this value to other Member States, this is a very
small quantity compared to the estimated bank of ODS in foams at 570.000 tODP. There is a
contribution from old equipment in landfills to emissions.
Based on the considerations above the drivers and assumptions made to construct the baseline
scenario are summarised in Table A4.3.
Table A4.3 Overview of drivers and assumptions for the baseline scenario of relevant parameters
ODS emissions
source
Stock or
emissions
(tODP and
tCO2e)
Driver for 2020 – 2050 trend
Production
Controlled
substances
(tODP stock)
Production reduces in line with use of controlled substances as feedstock (see below
under Feedstock), to account for the expectation that most EU production will be for
EU industry, and that exports is not used by industry to make up some of the
difference of reduced demand.
Emissions
(tODP)
Emissions are reduced in line with production
Emissions
(tCO2e)
Emissions are reduced in line with production. See Feedstock use for calculation
details of converting from tODP to GHG. No expected significant change in emission
factor (EF) for production.
Annex II
substances
(tODP stock)
Assumed to stay constant for use and emissions, as less regulatory pressure, but
also no indication for significant growth from historic data (production stayed
relatively constant across 2010 – 2019).
As 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.
Emissions
(tODP)
Emissions
(tCO2e)
Feedstock use
Controlled
substances
(tODP stock)
Taking the 2013 – 2019 trend. 2010-2012 is excluded as there were very high
feedstock quantities used which may have been affected by the economic recovery
after the 2009 crisis. Using the 2013 to 2019 reduction results in an annual reduction
of 3.53%. This reduction (in tODP) was 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.
Emissions
(tODP)
Method similar to tODP stock, starting with reported EEA data, but emissions reduce
slightly faster than use, reflecting a reduction in emission factor between 2010 to
2019 (from 0.013 to 0.09). As the maximum potential is almost reached, emission
factor is considered to reduce only from 0.09 to 0.08 between 2020 and 2050.
Emissions
(tCO2e) Converted tODP to tCO2e using GWPs from the GHG protocol (citing IPCC AR5)104
Annex II
substances*
(tODP stock)
Assumed to stay constant, in line with reasoning and driver for production of Annex II
emissions.
Emissions
(tODP)
With use constant, emissions reduce only in line with the slowly reducing emission
factor. This reduction in emission factor is assumed as equal to the reduction of the
emission factor for controlled substances (which reduces from 0.09 to 0.08, or ~ 11%
from 2020 to 2050).
Emissions
(tCO2e)
Converted tODP to tCO2e using GWPs from the GHG protocol (citing IPCC AR5)
102
SKM (2012), Further Assessment of Policy Options for the Management and Destruction of Banks of ODS
and F-Gases in the EU
103 CEFIC (2020), CEFIC Economic Outlook 2021
104
GHG protocol (2016), Greenhouse Gas Potential Values (citing from IPCC AR5), available at: available at:
https://www.ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/ghgp/Global-Warming-Potential-Values %28Feb 16
2016%29_1.pdf
65
Controlled
substance
feedstocks with
potential identified
alternatives
Stock
Identified via the uses highlighted in the Evaluation, and the process-specific data
from the EEA reporting.
Emissions
Emissions
(tCO2e)
Process agent use
Stock
Process agent use is expected to decline significantly.to 25% of 2019 levels in 2040
as old installations are being eliminated.
Emissions Emissions decline linearly in line with use.
Emissions
(tCO2e)
Emissions decline linearly in line with use.
Laboratory use
Licences (#
no annual
licences)
Use of the EC licence data to identify number of licences. The use of the Laboratory
Registration System (LabODS) slowly increased and is expected to max out at 1200.
Not expected to increase or decrease, as no clear link to 2010 – 2019 economic
trends identified in the licence data.
Emissions
(tODP)105 Emissions assumed to be < 1 tODP per year and stay constant in line with licences.
Foam banks
Annual
release (tODP
stock)
All data derived from the forecast model of SKM (2012) with no modifications.
For ODS banks of foam, predictions on future emissions can be made through
understanding the current size of the bank in combination with an assumption on how
much of this is released into the atmosphere annually, which is set at 1.2% based on
previous research (SKM Enviros, 2012).
Large quantities of foams are reaching their end of life until 2030. Sustained high
levels of emissions will occur until 2050 and beyond.
Emissions
(tODP)
Emissions
(tCO2e)
Critical use halons
Stock Identified from the Evaluation support study, Table 38 (Ramboll, 2019).
Emissions
(tODP)
Using Article 26(1) reports, aggregated data for each Member State excluding the
UK, for the 2015 to 2019 period. As the required critical halon stock reduces in line
with the prohibition dates, emissions are also reducing to a similar degree.
See also Annex 5
Emissions
(tCO2e)
Converted tODP to tCO2e using GWPs from the GHG protocol (citing IPCC AR5)
Imports Annual flow Imports and exports are aligned with the global IEA (2020) SDS (Sustainable
Development Scenario) trend for Ammonia, as a proxy for the high-volume basic
chemical production system that ODS are part of.
Imports are relatively constant over the 2010 to 2019 period and therefore the
average over 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.
Exports Annual flow
D. Development of the environmental baseline
To define a baseline scenario for ODS emissions, the relevant drivers which influence the
remaining ODS emissions in the EU are projected into the future. Projections have been
developed for 5-year steps from 2020 to 2050, for each relevant activity that is impacted by,
driven by, or relevant to the Regulation.
Table A4.4 Baseline results for flows of ODS linked to exempted uses and banks
ODS emissions
source
Stock or
emissions
(tODP and
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
105 Due to the heterogeneity of substances used for laboratories, the total GWP of these substances could not
be estimated as no substance-level data is made available for any one year.
66
tCO2e)
Production
Annex I
substances
(tODP stock)
52,285 51,930 50,210 48,576 47,022 45,541 44,130
Emissions
(tODP)
10 10 9 9 9 9 8
Emissions
(tCO2e)
59,706 59,301 57,336 55,471 53,969 52,005 50,394
Annex II
substances
(tODP stock)
22,115 22,115 22,115 22,115 22,115 22,115 22,115
Emissions
(tODP)
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Emissions
(tCO2e)
2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400
Feedstock use
Controlled
substances
(tODP stock)
38,377 36,721 35,136 33,620 32,169 30,781 29,453
Emissions
(tODP)
34 32 30 28 27 25 24
Emissions
(tCO2e)
203,000 200,268 195,190 190,240 185,416 180,714 176,131
Annex II
substances*
(tODP stock)
22,583 22,583 22,583 22,583 22,583 22,583 22,583
Emissions
(tODP)
20 19 19 19 18 18 18
Emissions
(tCO2e)
11,248 11,043 10,842 10,645 10,452 10,261 10,075
Annex I
feedstocks with
potential identified
alternatives106
Stock 14,612 13,981 13,378 12,801 12,248 11,720 11,214
Emissions 0.56 0.53 0.49 0.46 0.44 0.41 0.38
Emissions
(tCO2e)
9,638.00 9,054.33 8,506.00 7,990.88 7,506.96 7,052.34 6,625.26
Process agent use
Stock 283 220 170 132 102 79 61
Emissions 4 3 2 2 1 1 1
Emissions
(tCO2e)
14,200 11,000 7,050 7,050 3,700 3,700 3,700
Laboratory use
Licences (#
no annual
licences)
1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200
Emissions
(tODP)107 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Foam banks**
Annual
release (tODP
stock)
14,000 14,800 8,900 3,100
Emissions
(tODP)
6,000 6,700 5,700 4,200
Emissions
(tCO2e)
37 * 106
42 * 106
38 * 106
27 * 106
Critical use halons
Stock 5,586 5,210 4,866 4,549 3,247 0 0
Emissions
(tODP)
42.8 40.2 38.0 36.0 22.6 0 0
Emissions
(tCO2e)
26,619 25,017 23,653 22,400 14,095 0 0
Imports Annual flow 4,202 4,096 3,961 3,826 3,695 3,569 3,447
106 In section 4.3.1.1, the substances identified by the Evaluation of 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.
67
Exports Annual flow 15,970 16,272 16,166 16,031 15,896 15,765 15,639
*For Annex II substances, 99% of production is assumed to go to feedstock use. Imports of Annex II substances are unknown,
so not included.
** For foam banks, data is from SKM Enviros (2012)
E. Economic baseline drivers
Economic impacts are the baseline costs for businesses and laboratories, Member States as
well as costs for the European Commission, without any change to the legislation. These
costs are split by actors and measures that pertain to monitoring, reporting, licencing, etc.
Some of these costs depend on the outputs of the environmental drivers above, as they
depend on ODS use and emission projections as drivers of costs. Many economic costs are
related to administrative costs, which are taken from the evaluation and 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
68
was assumed to have a linear relationship with, for example, the ‘registration requirements
for laboratories’ was assumed to be correlated with the use of ODS in 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
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
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.
Registration
requirements for
laboratories
Data from the Evaluation is used from Table III.6 in the Evaluation, only the last 4 years as
costs went down significantly in 2014. Registration requirements are expected to remain
constant, as there is no historic time series available to verify its link to any other driver.
Reporting
requirements
Reporting requirements are expected to go down in line with an expected concentration of
the market, as global economic trends favour market concentration with a reducing number
of market players across the chemical industry. Costs baseline is from Table III.6 in the
evaluation.
Table A4.6 Description of baseline cost drivers for Member State authorities and the European
Commission/EEA
Description of cost Description of driver methodology used to forecast from 2020 to 2050
Member State Authorities
Reporting
Totals are taken from Evaluation table III.8, average across 8 years. We then multiply by 27
and divide by 28 to 'take away' the UK part. This is expected to remain constant in the future
69
Description of cost Description of driver methodology used to forecast from 2020 to 2050
Other costs,
including
inspections,
customs, and
promotion of
recycling
Using Evaluation Table III.7, it can be assumed that > 80% of movements came from the
countries who provided data here. The NL figure from Table III.7 is likely repeated and it is
unlikely the time would be spend double for "checking imports and exports" and "conducting
inspections", so therefore this has only been counted once. This total is then upgraded to
100% and divided by 8.
Admin costs to the European Commission
Licencing
requirements
Baseline data from Evaluation, in line with the trend for licences for businesses, costs for
processing of licences are expected to decrease in line with Annex I import and exports. The
trend driver is the same as used for business.
Quota allocation
Baseline data from Evaluation. Drivers are Annex I imports and production. In line with the
cost trend for businesses.
Registration
requirements for
laboratories
(LabODS
registry)
Baseline data from the Evaluation, expected to stay constant in line with the trend for
businesses.
Registration for
ODS companies
and customs
(ODS licencing
system)108
Baseline data from the Evaluation, expected to go down as import and export movements
slightly decrease every year up until 2050. The trend driver is the same as used for
business.
IT system (cross-
cutting: licencing,
registration for
labs)
Baseline data from the Evaluation, IT system costs are increased by 50% between 2020 and
2030, in line with IT cost development in the EC. A large cost driver are concerns on data
security and (personal) data protection. This is not expected to increase further after 2030.
Reporting
requirements
Baseline data from the Evaluation, and use a combined driver that includes the combined
average of all imports, exports, production, feedstock and process agent reports.
Phase-out
schedules109
Costs move in line with the phase out schedule for critical use halons, which is defined by
use case and quantity in the evaluation up until 2040. No more costs after 2040 as all phase
out schedules have passed.
Illegal trade &
customs
Baseline data from the Evaluation, where the trend is defined by import + export
movements.
Technical
requirements for
destructions
Data from Evaluation, expected to stay constant with no evidence to the contrary.
Technical
requirements for
labelling
Data from Evaluation, expected to stay constant with no evidence to the contrary.
Technical
requirements for
leakage, emission
control and
related Member
State
implementation
measures
Data from Evaluation, expected to stay constant with no evidence to the contrary.
Derogation
decisions
Data from Evaluation, projected using knowledge of prohibition dates for remaining uses
subject to derogations or future derogations
108 Costs for the ODS licencing system does not assume adoption of the Single Window system, as the
implementation of the policy option is linked to implementation of the Single Window environment.
Therefore, for ease of calculation, the impacts of implementing the Single Window environment are included
in the assessment of the policy option, and not in the baseline.
109
These costs are associated to critical use banks and evolve in line with the dynamics for these uses in the
baseline scenario.
70
Description of cost Description of driver methodology used to forecast from 2020 to 2050
General
correspondence
and advice
Data from Evaluation, expected to remain constant.
Ensuring data
security and data
protection
Data from Evaluation, expected to remain constant.
Outreach
activities
(meetings and
brochures)
Data from Evaluation, expected to remain constant.
Assuring
compliance in the
Member States
Data from Evaluation, expected to remain constant.
Providing access
to documents
Data from Evaluation, expected to remain constant.
IT implementation
costs
Data from Evaluation. The trend is expected to remain constant as this concerns overhead
IT implementation costs. The expected increase in IT costs is already covered in the IT
system data row.
External support Data from Evaluation, expected to remain constant.
Admin costs to EEA
IEEA Admin costs
Costs increase by 25% to account for expected cost increases in by 2030
EEA Topic centre
Constant
EEA External IT
support
consultancy for
ODS webform
ODS development cost. As the webform now exists, expected to only need 50% of this for
maintenance from 2025 onwards. Costs remain the same in 2020 due to data security and
protection.
EEA External IT
consultancy for
BDR system
Constant
Table A4.7 shows that total costs for businesses are expected to decline slightly in the
baseline. Although the costs associated with registration requirements for laboratories are not
expected to change, the rest of the costs are expected to be declining in line with the declining
overall use of ODS. Two most important cost categories are licencing and reporting
requirements. The baseline assumes that, with a decline in the use of ODS, less businesses
will need to apply for licences and report. At the same time, those businesses that still do will
spend less time on these activities due to lower ODS volumes (and lower number of
substances) to licence and report.
Many components of the costs are projected to decrease, following the trends on declining
use of ODS in the EU (approximately by 5% every 5 years, following the trends described
above), so the total costs are also expected to fall overall.
Table A4.7 Baseline projected administrative costs to businesses associated with the ODS regulation,
EUR 2020
Description of cost 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050
71
Description of cost 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050
Total Cost for
businesses
303,486 303,428 297,391 285,658 274,892
Licensing
requirements
113,731 114,836 113,477 110,455 107,608
Quotas 10,961 10,871 10,511 9,841 9,232
Registration
requirements for
laboratories
47,297 47,297 47,297 47,297 47,297
Reporting
requirements
131,498 130,425 126,106 118,066 110,756
Source: Derivation from Table III.6 in the ODS Evaluation
Table A4.8 presents the estimated baseline administrative costs associated with ODS
Regulation between 2020 and 2050 for Member State Authorities and the European
Commission/EEA. These costs are presented in real terms of 2020 currency in EUR or in
person-days. As described above, the costs are based on the recent cost data primarily
sourced from the Evaluation. Most cost categories are expected to stay constant or decline
slightly, due to declining use of ODS. There are, however, some cost categories that are
expected to increase in the baseline scenario. For example, IT system costs are expected to go
up, as the result of strengthening data and security requirements.
72
Table A4.8: Baseline projected administrative costs associated with ODS Regulation for Member State
authorities, the European Commission, and the EEA, in EUR 2020 and days, depending on the cost category
Description of cost 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Total admin costs to Member State authorities
Reporting (EUR) 38,133 38,133 38,133 38,133 38,133 38,133 38,133
Other costs,
including
inspections,
customs, and
promotion of
recycling (days)
507 507 507 507 507 507 507
Admin costs to the European Commission
Total EC admin
costs for
categories
expressed in
person days
788 827 825 817 803 768 762
Licencing
requirements
(days)
132
133 132 130 128 127 125
Quota allocation
(days)
60
60 58 56 54 52 51
Registration
requirements for
laboratories
(LabODS
registry) (days)
73 73 73 73 73 73 73
Registration for
ODS companies
and customs
(ODS licencing
system)110
(days)
63 63 63 62 61 60 59
IT system
(cross-cutting:
licencing,
registration for
labs) (days)
168 202 202 202 202 202 202
Reporting
requirements
(days)
52 51 50 49 47 46 45
Phase-out
schedules111
(days)
18 17 16 15 9 0 0
Illegal trade &
customs (days)
84 85 84 83 82 81 80
Technical
requirements for
destructions
(days)
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Technical
requirements for
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
110 Costs for the ODS licencing system does not assume adoption of the Single Window system, as the
implementation of the policy option is linked to implementation of the Single Window environment.
Therefore, for ease of calculation, the impacts of implementing the Single 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.
73
Description of cost 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
labelling (days)
Technical
requirements for
leakage,
emission control
and related
Member State
implementation
measures (days)
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Derogation
decisions (days)
40 40 40 40 40 20 20
General
correspondence
and advice
(days)
24 24 24 24 24 24 24
Ensuring data
security and
data protection
(days)
19 24 28 28 28 28 28
Outreach
activities
(meetings and
brochures)
(days)
11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Assuring
compliance in
the Member
States (days)
15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Providing
access to
documents
(days)
14 14 14 14 14 14 14
Total EC admin
costs for
categories
expressed in
EUR
213,950 258,375 302,800 302,800 302,800 302,800 302,800
IT
implementation
costs (EUR)
177,700 177,700 177,700 177,700 177,700 177,700 177,700
External support
(EUR)
36,250 36,250 36,250 36,250 36,250 36,250 36,250
Admin costs to EEA112159,163
In house
thematic project
management (€)
142 160 178 178 178 178 178
Total EEA
admin costs for
categories
expressed in
EUR
116,450 111,600 116,563 116,563 116,563 116,563 116,563
European Topic
Centre (EUR)
39,700 44,663 49,625 49,625 49,625 49,625 49,625
External IT
consultancy
support for ODS
19,625 9,813 9,813 9,813 9,813 9,813 9,813
112 Additional IT costs due to strengthening of data and security requirements are included under EC IT costs.
These categories reflect maintenance costs.
74
Description of cost 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
webform (EUR)
External IT
consultancy
support for BDR
development
and
maintenance
(EUR)
57,125 57,125 57,125 57,125 57,125 57,125 57,125
Source: Derivation from Tables III.7 - 13 in the ODS Evaluation
75
Annex 5: Detailed information on halon banks
Halons, which have very high ODP and GWP values, are still used for fire protection in
certain “critical” applications, e.g. on aircraft and military equipment.
All ‘new equipment’ and existing equipment in use where retrofit was deemed possible113
must 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.
76
Quantities
(metric
tonnes)
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Average
2019 -
2015
2015-2019 Trends
Used(iii)
28.6 42.5 52.1 28.3 37.0
37,6
+29%
Emissions(iv)
4.9 7.2 6.0 5.4 3.4 5,4 -30%
Emissions(v)
(tODP)
37.3 61.1 51.3 40.5 23.7 42.8 -37%
Emissions
(tCO2e)
23,209 38, 197 31,804 25,195 14,688 26,619 -37%
Destruction
(vi) 37.9 31.8 4.5 3.0 7.5 16.9 -80%
Exports 48.1 9.3 5.8 10.7 7.3 16.2 -85%
Imports 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.4 *(vii)
(i) Missing data: 2015 LV (ca. 1.2 metric tonnes based on following years), 2017 HR (ca. 6 metric tonnes based on
previous and following year)
(ii) Missing data: 2015 LV ca. 0t, 2017 HR ca. 0.15t,
(iii) Missing data: 2015 LV ca. 0t, 2017 HR ca. 0.2t,
(iv) Missing data: 2015 LV ca. 0t, 2017 HR ca. 0.001t,
(v) Missing data: 2015 LV ca 0 tODP, 2017 HR ca 0.01 tODP
(vi) Amounts destroyed are 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.
(vii) 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.
77
Figure A5.2 Remaining size of the active critical use halon bank in the baseline, split by availability of
alternatives as identified by the Evaluation.
78
Annex 6: Detailed information on foams recovery
A. Emissions from foam banks
The main source of current and future emissions are ODS banks in particular from
certain building materials containing foams blown with ODS. The estimated size of this bank
in 2010 was 570,000 tODP, of which about 1.2% is emitted each year, which is ca. 6000
tODP117
or 37 Mt CO2e (Fig. A6.2), which amounts to more 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 and F-Gases in the EU. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/default/files/ozone/docs/ods_f-
gas_destruction_report_2012_en.pdf
79
demolition of buildings. Annual emissions will increase until 2030-35 to almost 6700 tODP
or 42 million tCO2e, about half of the total amounts entering the wastes stream each year120
.
After 2035 this trend will reverse, but the potential emissions still remain at ca. 4000 tones
tODP or 23 million tCO2e even in 2050 (Fig. A6.2). This is due to the significant
contribution of long-term leakage from landfilled ODS foams in the latter years, even though
the amount of ODS foams entering the 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.
80
would have contained ODS in the past. In the figure, the blue bars (% of ODS by bottom-up)
are assumed to be more accurate, as this data is less based on economic assumptions and
more on real-world data on 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:
81
 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
82
crushed on-site or not). Building audits are expensive and take time, but are required
to ascertain level of ODS present.
• Transportation is expensive per tonne of material handled as ODS foams are
considered hazardous materials.
• Foam material with ODS 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
Metal-faced panels
Medium-High
Refurbished recycling facilities that have so far been treating
old refrigeration equipment can treat metal-faced panels.
According to experts interviewed122
, it is economically and
technically feasible to recover Metal-faced panels. The Metal
component accounts for approx. 50-80% by weight (depending
on panel thickness) and is easy to segregate and can be treated
by existing refrigerant panel recycling plants. In this study, the
recovery of the metal component of panels is assumed to
already be economically viable, and only the foam component
is analysed with respect to additional cost. At the moment,
without a mandate for separation of panels and separate
disposal of the metal and foam elements, there is low natural
demand for the use of refrigerator panel recycling plants for
this purpose.
Laminated boards Medium-Low
Laminated boards are more difficult and expensive to recover
than metal-faced panels. However, built-up systems123
could
be feasible to recover since they are easy to segregate and
collect, and they can be cut into smaller pieces to transport
and process without losing much ODS content.
122 Interview with UK-based recycling facility owning several refrigerant plants refurbished for metal-faced
panels, and expert knowledge from authors of SKM (2012)
123
Type of laminated boards easily demountable system primarily used for roofing insulation.
83
Material Current feasibility Justification
Boards in cavity structures124
could also be feasible to
recover. Costs in some Member States like Germany, the
Netherlands or Austria, would be lower due to existing waste
regulations in place and favourable building practices that
reduce the contamination level of the materials. There is a
knowledge gap on the feasibility of this beyond these
countries.
Floor insulation boards are not yet economically feasible to
recover since they are contaminated with concrete, removal of
which requires more innovation. In a board, CFC is under
concrete, hence, it is highly contaminated and costly to collect
and segregate.
Spray foam
Low
According to the experts interviewed, spray foam recovery is
not feasible in the demolition phase. ODS spray foam is
mainly used in walls and roofs. It was often used on top of
existing structures for e.g. roof insulation, sprayed 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.
Block foam
Low For block foam, as part of concrete slabs, the recovery is not
feasible in the demolition phase as no examples have been
identified of successful splitting of this material from the
generic demolition waste stream. For block foam part of pipe
insulation, recovery opportunities may exist during pipe
replacement activities. No evidence however was identified
during this study on the recovery of pipe (block) foam in
practice.
In summary, it is appears feasible to recover about 100% of the waste stream of metal-faced
panels. They are the cheapest option given their valuable metal component and because they
can be cut into smaller pieces without emitting a significant amount of ODS being released.
Thus they can be treated in existing facilities for domestic appliances. It is estimated that
approximately 25% of built-up systems and cavity structures (the two sub-types of laminated
boards) should also be feasible to recover given the evidence of suitable construction
procedures. Floor insulation boards may still represent too many technical or economic
challenges to be a candidate for mandatory recovery because they are trapped into the
wreckage in the demolition process and, collection and segregation stage is labour intensive
and costly. In floor insulation, CFC is under concrete, hence, it is highly contaminated and
costly to collect and segregate. Spray foam is not efficient to recover as it is expected to lose
124 Type of laminated boards that are introduced in empty cavities of existing panels mainly used for wall
insulation
84
most of its ODS already in the use phase, making the cost-benefit ratio of mandatory
recovery very inefficient.
The industry is pro-actively exploring further 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
Unaddre
ssed
potential
Estimate of
untargeted emissions
(2020 - 2050)
Material
Policy
scenario
target
tODP
GHG (kt
CO2e) EUR
EU
R/
tO
DP
EU
R/
t
C
O2
e
tODP
GHG (kt
CO2e)
Metal-
faced
panels
100%
18,200
88,050 447,054,292
24,
56
3
5.1 0% 0 0
Built-up
system
s
25%
7,328
42,650 639,445,333
87,
25
9
15.
0
75% 22,000 128,000
Cavity
structur
e
25%
6,734
48,363 891,752,000
13
2,4
30
18.
44
75% 20,200 145,000
Floor
insulati
on
0% 0 0 - 100% 19,800 151,000
125 It is assumed that 10% content of blowing agent out of the total foam weight (German Federal
Environmental Agency, 2012) excluding the metal cladding.
85
Spray
foam
0% 0 0 - 100% 5,300 25,500
Block
foam
0% 0 0 - 100% 3,800 20,000
Total 32,262 179,063 1,978,251,625 71,100 469,500
Table A6.3 shows a comparison of abatement costs for metal-faced panels, built-up systems
and cavity structures, and compares with the estimates made with the abatement costs in
SKM (2012). SKM (2012) presented these costs only for GHG equivalent, and 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 Change (%)
Low High Low High
Metal-faced panels 5 25 120 -82% -97%
Laminated boards
Built-up
systems 15 50 150 -70% -90%
Cavity
structure 18 50 150 -65% -88%
To compensate for a lack of observed quantitative data on the costs across all Member States,
the costs for the practice of asbestos panel recovery was examined as a proxy. Compared to
the foam category of metal-faced panels, asbestos panels are somewhat 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
ODS-containing metal-faced panels (which is about 200 – 220 gram per m2
panel126
,
126 Estimate obtained from interview with Insus Recycling
86
equalling about ~ 1 ton of 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)
Shadow carbon price of asbestos
panel recovery, if the panels
contained 220 grams of CFC-11
(GWP 4660), similar to metal-
faced panels
Netherlands
Cost of removal (including
landfill) 14 – 50 €/m2 € 51./m2
Austria € 30/m2 € 31./m2
France
Cost of recovery: 25-150 €/m2
Cost of landfill disposal: 300-
500 €/ton
€ 25 – 153 /m2
Per ton comparison on landfill not
comparable due to weight differences
between asbestos and metal-faced
panels, and significant additional landfill
requirements for asbestos
Spain
Cost of recovery: 100-150 €/m2
Cost of landfill disposal: 160
€/m3
€ 102 – 153 /m2
Per m3
comparison not comparable due
to weight differences between asbestos
and metal-faced panels, and significant
additional landfill requirements for
asbestos
Bulgaria Cost of recovery 36 – 51 €/m2 € 37 – 52 /m2
87
The asbestos recovery costs can be seen as an upper limit to the costs of segregation
and transport. Asbestos is generally assumed to be stored in landfill sites, and therefore
do not have further significant costs after the material has been transported to the site. In
the hypothetical scenario that segregating and transporting ODS insulation panels 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
88
high premiums (e.g. for “good neighbourhood”) hence the potential increase in consumer
prices due to additional costs of recycling, even if realised, would be very marginal
compared to the final housing price.
In case of existing buildings, foam removal would in all likelihood only be linked to
substantial overhaul or refurbishment activities. Conversely, necessary maintenance or
emergency reparations would in almost all cases not include ODS foams removal. Thus
consumers with little 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.
89
Annex 7: List of clarifications needed in Regulation
- Clarify definition of destruction in relation to feedstock.
- Add definition of non-refillable container.
- For non-refillable containers, in addition to placing on the market prohibit
transport and possession, unless the containers are intended for laboratory and
analytical use.
- One incorrect reference has been identified in Article 15(2)(k) to Article 11(5)
where it should be to Article 11(8).
- Clarify the wording of Article 5(3) and make clear that both servicing of
equipment with controlled substances and any other use of controlled
substances, except for the uses exempted in other articles, are prohibited.
- Clarify the links with 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
90
Annex 8: Measures and Intervention logic of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009
Measure Relevant Articles of the Ozone Regulation
General prohibitions to produce, place on the market or use ODS as bulk or in products or equipment
Articles 4-6 prohibiting production, placing on the market and
use of all ODS in Annex I (e.g. CFCs, HCFCs, halons, methyl
bromide,..) including in products and equipment
Exemptions from the general prohibition
In relation to:
Article 7: Feedstock uses
Article 8: Process Agent uses
Article 9: Destruction and Reclamation
Article 10: Laboratory and analytical uses
Article 12: Methyl bromide emergency use
Article 13: Critical halon uses
Prohibitions on trade (import export) unless related to exempted uses, as well as licensing
requirements for trade
Articles 15, 17 and 18
Quota limitations related to the exempted uses Article 16
Registration requirements for laboratory and analytical uses Article 10
Technical requirements for labelling that are mirroring the exemptions Article 7, 8, 10, and 11
Recovery and destruction Article 22, Annex VII
Obligations to prevent leakage and emissions Article 23
Obligations on Member States to conduct inspections and have penalties Article 28 and 29
Reporting requirements for EU Member States and undertakings (including illegal trade) Article 26
Company reporting on ODS Article 27
91
92
Annex 9: List of discarded options
A9.1 Discarded options regarding the exempted uses
 Impose strict maximum limit for use and placing on the market for feedstock
uses. Such a general requirement, in the absence of viable alternatives, will result in
a 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
93
alternatives to halons for firefighting, as both GWP and ODP are lower, but are
currently not allowed under the Regulation. However, such an option would not be
in line with 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:
 Align qualification requirements for with the F-gas Regulation for personnel that
is involved in handling refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat pump equipment,
including at the end of useful life, i.e. leakage checking, recovery and
decommissioning. However, such equipment still containing or relying on ODS
(Annex I) after 2020 is very small. Furthermore such ODS equipment is very likely
serviced and decommissioned by the same 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).
94
 Introduce a de minimis for the annual quota allocation process that would still
require annual quota allocation by large-scale importers, but would exempt
transactions dealing with small amounts. Such a hybrid system 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
95
purchaser and reason of the purchase. Given the likely additional administrative
burden for companies, national authorities and the EC, this option was screened out.
 Add unsaturated hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFOs) for monitoring purposes.
As some of these substances belonging to this group are already monitored under the
F-gas Regulation, it seems more appropriate to consider the inclusion for monitoring
of any other gas belonging to that group there.
 Add a criteria based on ODP for an automatic inclusion of substance for
monitoring. This option would include all substances with a certain ODP
automatically in Annex II Part B. Inclusion of some ODS that are not yet covered
under the 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.
96
Annex 10: Visual aid showing the links between the problems
identified, relevant drivers and individual measures to address
the problems
Policy Option 1
Policy Option 2: also includes PO1
measures
Policy Option 3: also includes PO1 and
PO2 measures
n.b.: Measure A1 is more ambitious for PO2 and PO3,
compared to PO1, as it also includes laminated boards