EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 28.9.2022 SWD(2022) 311 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

[…] Accompanying the document [Mandatory element] Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2009/148/EC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos art work {COM(2022) 489 final} - {SEC(2022) 342 final} - {SWD(2022) 310 final} - {SWD(2022) 312 final}



Table of contents 1Introduction: Political and legal context 2Problem definition 2.1What is/are the problems? 2.2What are the problem drivers? 2.3How will the problem evolve? 3Why should the EU act? 3.1Legal basis 3.2Subsidiarity: Necessity and added value of EU action 4Objectives: What is to be achieved? 4.1General objectives 4.2Specific objectives 4.3Consistency with other EU policies 5What are the possible policy options? 5.1Baseline Scenario 5.2Options discarded at an early stage 5.3Policy options 6What are the impacts of the policy options? 6.1Analytical methodology

6.2Impacts of the policy options 7How do the options compare? 8Preferred option 8.1Overall impact of the preferred option 8.2Subsidiarity, proportionality and REFIT 9How will actual impacts be monitored and evaluated? 9.1Monitoring arrangements 9.2Evaluation arrangements annex 1: procedural information annex 2: stakeholder consultation annex 3: who is affected and how? annex 4: analytical methods annex 5: uses, activities and exposures annex 6: relevant sectors & sme´s test annex 7: existing guidelines and voluntary industry initiatives annex 8: measurement method Glossary ACM Asbestos-containing material AM Arithmetic mean APF Assigned Protection Factor AWD Asbestos at Work Directive BAuA Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin in Germany CAD Chemical Agents Directive CDB Current disease burden CMD The Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive DG Directorate General EC European Commission EFBWW European Federation of Building and Woodworkers EEC European Economic Community ECHA European Chemicals Agency EODS European Occupational Diseases Statistics ERR Exposure Risk Relationship ETUI European Trade Union Institute FIEC European Construction Industry Federation EU European Union FoBiG Forschungs und Beratungsinstitut Gefahrstoffe IARC International Agency for Research of Cancer ISO The International Organization for Standardization LOD Limit of Detection LOQ Limit of Quantification MS Member State NACE Nomenclature statistique des activités économiques dans la Communauté européenne, the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community n.e.c. Not elsewhere classified OEL Occupational Exposure Limit OSH Occupational Safety and Health OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PCM Phase-Contrast Microscopy or Phase-Contrast Microscope PPE Personal Protective Equipment RAC Committee for Risk Assessment RPA Risk & Policy Analysts Ltd RPA Risk & Policy Analysts Ltd REACH Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals Regulation RMM Risk Management Measure RPE Respiratory Protective Equipment SDG sustainable development goals SEM Scanning Electron Microscopy Energy SEM/EDXA Scanning Electron Microscopy Dispersive X-ray Analysis SME Small and Medium-sized Enterprise TEM Transmission Electron Microscopy TLV Threshold Limit Value TWA Time-weighted Average UK United Kingdom WHO World Health Organization

1Introduction: Political and legal context A strong social Europe calls for constant improvements towards safer and healthier work for all. Over the last years, the European Union (EU) occupational safety and health (OSH) policy and rules have contributed to considerably improving working conditions, in particular workers’ protection from exposure to carcinogens and other hazardous chemicals. Limit values and other provisions have been set or revised for many substances or groups of substances under the Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive 2004/37/EC and the Chemical Agents Directive 98/24/EC. The fight against occupational cancer remains a high priority in the area of OSH. The Commission announced in the European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan and the OSH Strategic Framework for 2021-2027 the intention to present a legislative proposal to further reduce workers’ exposure to asbestos. This was confirmed in the letter of intent of the State of the Union address 2021 and the Commission Work Programme for 2022. Furthermore, it is also highlighted as one of priorities under action 3 - A stronger economy, social justice and jobs – in the Commission Communication on the follow-up of the Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFE) . The Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan supports the need for action in the field of protection of workers against carcinogenic substances. Improved protection of workers exposed to asbestos will also be important in the context of the green transition and the implementation of the European Green Deal, including in particular the Renovation Wave for Europe .The European Parliament adopted in October 2021 a resolution with recommendations to the Commission on protecting workers from asbestos (2019/2182 INL) . In it, the Parliament calls for the lowering of the existing limit value (0.1 fibres/cm3) for asbestos to 0.001 fibres/cm3. The European Economic and Social Committee has put forward the same call in its own-initiative opinion “ Working with Asbestos in Energy Renovation ” adopted in 2019. In response, the Commission has adopted its Communication on working towards an asbestos-free future: a European approach to addressing the health risks of asbestos. It addresses the public-health risk stemming from asbestos in a holistic manner, presenting EU-level measures to tackle asbestos throughout its life cycle. This initiative covered by this impact assessment has therefore a limited scope. It aims to address the protection of workers at workplace. Inadequate control of hazardous chemicals at the workplace not only causes diseases of workers, but it is also associated with significant costs to individuals and the society as a whole. Direct costs of work-related cancer alone in terms of healthcare and productivity losses have been estimated to amount to at least some EUR 4-7 billion per year in the EU. The indirect costs may reach as much as EUR 334 billion each year. The long-term care aspect is particularly important for occupational cancer. Good OSH is essential not only to minimise these costs, but also to reduce disruptions at work due to absenteeism and to contribute to productivity and competitiveness. This initiative will contribute to the sustainable development goals (SDG) on good health and well-being ( 3rd goal ), decent work and economic growth ( 8th goal ), to industry, innovation and infrastructure ( 9th goal ) and to responsible production and consumption ( 12th goal ). In the EU the protection of workers against risks related to exposure to asbestos is regulated by the Asbestos at Work Directive 2009/148/EC (AWD) . This initiative aims at enhancing the effectiveness of the occupational exposure limit (OEL) value under the directive by updating it on the basis of new scientific knowledge. Since the last revision of the asbestos OEL in 2003, scientific evidence has demonstrated that asbestos does not have a safe exposure level, which means that any exposure to asbestos may eventually cause an asbestos-related disease. It is supported by the last in-depth evaluation of the AWD and in line with the latest assessment of the implementation of the EU occupational safety and health (OSH) directives for the period from 2013 to 2017. In addition, the tripartite Advisory Committee for Safety and Health at Work (ACSH) unanimously agreed on the need to lower the current OEL. For this impact assessment, the Commission contracted a study to Risk & Policy Analysts Ltd (RPA), hereafter “external study” or “RPA (2021)”, in order to collect the most recent information on asbestos with the view to analyse the health, socio-economic and environmental impacts of a possible amendment of the AWD. Due to the limitations of available data, the estimation for some sectors relies on few sources and needs to be taken with caution. The lack of data is also acknowledged in the most recent update of the national implementation reports where several Member States mention challenges in collecting data (incl. lack of available data). For example, Hungary, Malta, Portugal and Slovenia mention, in particular, the lack of data on the number of cancer deaths that can be attributed to occupational exposure to carcinogens such as asbestos. Given the level of scientific and technical knowledge required to identify measures ensuring adequate protection of workers while being practically feasible for companies, the Commission bases its proposals in this area on opinions developed by the tripartite ACSH. The opinions of ACSH take into account the scientific basis, which is indispensable to underpin OSH legislation. In order to establish this scientific basis for the ACSH, the Commission sought advice from the Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). RAC-ECHA concluded in their scientific assessment that asbestos is a non-threshold carcinogen and consequently, no health-based OEL was identified and no OEL was suggested. Instead, an exposure-risk relationship was derived, expressing the excess risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma mortality (combined) as a function of the fibre concentration in the air. The purpose of this impact assessment is to assess whether there is a need to revise the level of protection offered by the AWD, and if yes, which would be the most appropriate level to take this forward. The Commission will consider the opinion of ACSH together with the contributions received through the different channels for consultation as well the recommendations of the European Parliament resolution. 2Problem definition 2.1What is the problem? Occupational cancer is the main cause of work-related deaths in the EU, being primarily caused by exposures to carcinogenic substances such as asbestos. Asbestos is a highly dangerous carcinogenic agent. Its airborne fibres are very resistant and when inhaled could lead to, for example, mesothelioma and lung cancer, with a lag between exposure to asbestos and the first signs of disease of as much as 30 years. 78% of cancers recognised as occupational cancer in the Member States are asbestos related. For mesothelioma, there is no cure and patients have an average life expectancy between 4 and 18 months after diagnosis. Asbestos exposure is responsible for 92% of the mesothelioma cases. Mesothelioma alone already accounts for approximately 15% of all work-related cancer deaths, 39% of the new work-related recognised cancer cases and 50% of asbestos related cancer cases. Lung cancer, which is the second commonly diagnosed form of cancer for men and the third for women, is associated with relatively low survival rate after diagnosis when compared with other common cancer types for men (prostate) and women (breast and colorectal cancers). Lung cancer accounts for 44% of all new recognised occupational cancers with asbestos accounting for 88% of total new recognised occupational lung cancers. There were an estimated 66 808 deaths attributable to occupational exposure to asbestos for the EU-27 countries in 2016. In 2019, the estimates show a total of 71 750 deaths in the EU-27 from occupational exposure to asbestos . Those figures reflect the effect of past exposures, given the long latency of asbestos-related diseases, but also confirms the severity of the consequences of exposure to this hazard.

It is estimated that currently 4.1 to 7.3 million workers are exposed to asbestos, with the major share (3.5 to 5.5 million) being workers in a situation of sporadic and low intensity exposure. The progressive restriction of the use of asbestos in the EU started in 1988 with the prohibition or restriction of crocidolite (also called blue asbestos). Since 2005 , all forms of asbestos are banned in the EU. Despite of this, there is a substantial legacy problem since asbestos is still present in many older buildings. These are likely to be renovated, adapted or demolished over the coming years. The exposure of workers to asbestos is expected to increase in all EU countries as the Renovation Wave Strategy progresses . Ineffective prevention of the exposure to asbestos also entails negative consequences for businesses. Companies that take appropriate measures may have a competitive disadvantage over those that do not. Moreover, although not immediately, due to the delayed consequences of ineffective prevention, future businesses are expected to bear higher costs and reduced productivity due to absenteeism and loss of expertise. For Member States, it translates into increased social security costs (e.g. through higher costs for medical treatment and work incapacity) and missed tax revenues. Recent estimates indicate that the cost of work-related cancers alone amounts to EUR 119.5 billion every year, from which between EUR 35 to 76 billion are costs due to lung cancers caused by asbestos exposure. The problem tree below summarises the main drivers behind the problem and the resulting consequences for workers, businesses, and Member States: 2.2What are the problem drivers? 2.2.1Market drivers Asbestos, due to its insulating properties, was used in the past (albeit in varying amounts) in almost all branches of trade and industry and is largely spread across Member States. Asbestos is found in ships, train coaches, aeroplanes, and military vehicles, but more importantly, in public and industrial buildings and private homes. Before the asbestos ban, there were over three thousand uses of asbestos. The biggest share of asbestos in the EU was used for the manufacture of asbestos cement products (70-80%). The rest was used for other construction products, floor coverings, brake and clutch linings, asbestos textiles, asbestos cardboards, insulating board, spray insulation, filter materials, etc. Consumption varied by Member State with a tendency to higher consumption in Western Europe in the 1950-1970s and higher consumption in Eastern European Member States in the 1990-2000s, as the ban on asbestos followed in some cases their accession to the EU. More detail on the historical trend in the use of asbestos per country is provided in annex 5. According to the response from the German authorities to the stakeholder consultation carried out by RPA, it is estimated that in Germany approx. 25-30% of the building products containing asbestos are still installed. It is also estimated that, between 1952 and 1997, 1.75 million tonnes of raw asbestos were used in the manufacture of asbestos-containing products and in industrial installations in Poland and that some 1.2 billion m2 of these products still existed in 2017. Asbestos can be found in several forms in buildings all over the EU. More than 220 million building units, representing 85% of the EU’s building stock, were built before 2001 and, therefore, before the use of asbestos was banned in all EU Member States. Those buildings will be renovated (either for maintenance or aesthetic purposes or for energy efficiency reasons) or demolished and replaced by new construction. Figure 1 gives an indication of the age composition of the EU building stock, while figure 2 shows distribution of asbestos per dwelling across Member States. The 'Renovation Wave' under the European Green Deal (external market driver), with a focus on making the buildings more energy-efficient and sustainable, will accelerate the renovation works of the EU building stock. This would lead to an aggravation of the existing problem, as it would translate into an even greater number of workers exposed to asbestos in the near future, both who currently work and those whose jobs will be created thanks to the renovation wave (see section 2.3). Source: EU Buildings Factsheets | Energy (europa.eu)

Source: JRC, 2022 Further information on the presence of asbestos in the residential building stock at EU regional level is available in a JRC recent study. To tackle the problem of building stock legacy the Commission announces in its Communication on working towards an asbestos-free future: a European approach to addressing the health risks of asbestos a legislative proposal on mandatory screening of asbestos in buildings. However, independently of the state and stock of asbestos in EU, there is a need to ensure workers protection. The risk of exposure is mostly related to the handling of asbestos and dispersion of asbestos fibres during construction works, such as during renovation and demolition. 97% of the workers exposed to asbestos belong to the construction sector. There is exposure to asbestos also in other economic sectors (e.g., waste management; mining and quarrying; tunnel excavation; and maintenance and sampling and analysis), with waste management being the one with the highest number of estimated exposed workers among those (2% of all exposed workers). For the stakeholder consultation carried out in the framework of the supporting study, Hazardous Waste Europe, representing the hazardous treatment installations, indicated that exposure may typically take place when the waste is packed e.g. in waste collection points. Potential exposure of the workers in waste collection points may happen by cleaning procedures e.g. when waste is disposed in improper containment. In addition, the risk of exposure also occurs when drilling platforms, ships, and other transport means (e.g. trains and aircraft) with asbestos insulation are repaired or disposed of. The Belgian railway company Infrabel estimated in 2020 that two-thirds of its fleet of 2,162 wagons contains small concentrations of asbestos fibres. Madrid Metro adopted in 2018 an Asbestos Removal Plan, agreed with the main trade unions, to resolve the situation caused by the asbestos problem. The plan concerns both the rolling stock, and infrastructure/facilities. Table 1 shows the estimated number of exposed workers as well as the route of exposure and health effects of asbestos exposure. In terms of gender, 97% of workers in the construction sector are men. Although there is very few disaggregated data by gender, studies show that mesothelioma in women accounts for about 20% of the cases and that these are mainly due to domestic exposure to asbestos fibres brought into the home by exposed workers (family members). More information concerning uses, activities and exposures of asbestos is available in annex 5. Exposed workforce (number of workers) Health effects caused Major occupational exposure route 4 100 000 - 7 300 000 Lung cancer

Mesothelioma

Laryngeal cancer

Ovarian cancer Inhalation Source: External study. RPA (2021) Asbestos can also cause other health effects, such as pulmonary fibrosis (asbestosis) and pleural plaques. According to the scientific assessment, asbestosis occurs only at exposure levels higher than the current exposure limit. Thus, it is assumed that new cases of asbestosis are due to past exposure to higher concentrations. Concerning pleural plaques, while they may occur already at lower exposure levels, their clinical relevance is unclear,. Therefore, neither asbestosis nor pleural plaques are health conditions covered by the below analysis. Table 2 shows the estimated current and future burden of cancer related only to the existing occupational exposure to asbestos. Given the long latency period of the illnesses (on average 30 years), the future health burden in this impact assessment is estimated over a 40-year period. However, the disease burden on workers may have been underestimated due to several limitations of the data/calculations, i.e., the relation between exposure levels and the associated risk, the use of single disease latency value or the conservative approach to the exposure duration. For further explanations please refer to the analytical challenges section of the annex 4. Furthermore, occupational cancers may develop decades after exposure – including during retirement – complicating the possibility of ascertaining a causal link to exposure at work and identifying them as occupational cancers, which could lead to underestimation of the disease burden. Table 2: Current and future disease burden related to occupational exposure to asbestos due to existing exposure situations (number of cases in EU 27) Health effects caused Quantified current disease burden* (estimation based on 2020 data for current types of exposure situations) Future disease burden estimated over a 40 years period** Lung cancer and mesothelioma 336 804 Laryngeal and ovarian cancer 34 80 TOTAL 370 884 * Due to past exposure for those sectors and occupations where exposure to asbestos currently occurs ** New cases that will arise from current exposures, assuming full compliance to current OEL (0.1 f/cm3) Source: External study. RPA (2021) The estimates above relate only to the sectors and occupations where exposure to asbestos currently occurs, mainly handling of asbestos and dispersion of asbestos fibres during construction works. The reason is that those sectors and occupations are the only ones relevant for the baseline scenario and the analysis of the options. However, the actual number of cases is much higher if one takes into account the total burden of past occupational exposure to asbestos (i.e., in occupations where exposure does not happen anymore). Between 2013 and 2019, there were 9866 recognised cases of mesothelioma and 9816 of lung cancers due to exposure to asbestos in the EU. The recognised cases are significantly lower than the actual number of deaths due to asbestos.

2.2.2Regulatory drivers While the extraction, manufacture and processing of asbestos is prohibited, the treatment and disposal of products resulting from demolition and asbestos removal is not. The AWD has as its aim the protection of workers against risks to their health, including the prevention of such risks, arising or likely to arise from exposure to asbestos at work. It lays down a number of specific requirements, as well as the limit value for this exposure. Thus, under the AWD, for all activities in which workers are or may be exposed to dust arising from asbestos or materials containing asbestos, a notification by the employer to the responsible authority of the Member State is mandatory, and exposure must be reduced to a minimum and in any case below the fixed binding limit value. If the limit value is exceeded, the reasons must be identified, and the employer must take appropriate risk management measures (RMM) to remedy the situation before work restarts. It is also specified that in case the limit value cannot be observed by other means, employers shall provide adequate respiratory and other personal protective equipment. The current occupational exposure limit value (OEL) in the AWD of 0.1 fibres/cm³ was set in 2003 based on the scientific and technology knowledge available at that time. The AWD further states that its minimum requirements should be reviewed based on experience acquired and on technology developments in the relevant areas. As a direct consequence of the asbestos ban and provisions for protection of workers under the AWD, a reduction of the number of cancer cases and deaths from exposure to asbestos is already happening. The downward trend is also reflected by the EU index (main indicator for the European Occupational Diseases Statistics (EODS) data collection) of occupational disease for lung cancer and mesothelioma which dropped to 86.3 in 2019 compared with the starting point (100) for the base year 2013. Following the new scientific and technologic developments since 2003, the tripartite ACSH, in November 2021, reached a consensus on the need to substantially revise downwards the existing binding occupational exposure limit to better protect workers’ health and safety and thus reduce the probability for asbestos-related diseases to happen. The most recent in-depth evaluation of the AWD (2017 ex post evaluation of the EU OSH directives ) concluded that the directive remains highly relevant and effective according to the available evidence. However, the evaluation supporting study concludes that there is evidence to support a lowering of the limit to increase the ongoing relevance and effectiveness of the AWD and it is suggested that this issue is explored in more depth. It also reports a very important reduction in the use of asbestos across the Member States . The revision of the OEL is also in line with the latest assessment of the implementation of the EU occupational safety and health (OSH) directives for the period from 2013 to 2017, presented in the staff working document accompanying the EU strategic framework on health and safety at work 2021-2027 (SWD (2021) 148 final).The RAC-ECHA scientific opinion necessary to reconsider the asbestos OEL was adopted in June 2021. According to it, asbestos does not have a safe exposure level, which means that any exposure to asbestos may eventually cause an asbestos-related disease. Thus, it is presented as the relation between exposure levels and the associated risk (exposure-risk relationship). Acknowledging the development of the scientific knowledge, four EU Member States have already reduced their limit value. As shown in table 3, workers in the EU are subject to different levels of protection. Three Member States have implemented binding OELs below the current EU OEL, and in one Member State there is a limit value corresponding to an acceptable concentration in addition to the binding limit value. The remaining EU Member States have the same OEL as the current EU OEL. Table 3: National OELs in EU Member States Country OEL (fibres/cm3) Comments European Union 0.1 Introduced in 2003 EU countries with stricter OEL: Netherlands 0.002 Asbestos fibres of the chrysotile type and amphibolic asbestos fibres, respectively, should not exceed this value. Introduced in 2017 Denmark 0.003 Introduced in 2022 France 0.01 Measured by Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and thus including 'thin asbestos fibres'. Introduced in 2015 Germany 0.1 0.01(*) Workplace exposure concentration corresponding to the proposed tolerable (binding limit value) cancer risk 4:1 000. Workplace exposure concentration corresponding to the proposed preliminary acceptable cancer risk 4:100 000. Introduced in 2008 (*) While the current binding OEL in Germany is 0.1 fibres/cm3, the mandatory guidelines require measures that are considered in practice to bring the exposure concentration below the 'acceptance level' (0.01 fibres/cm3). 2.3How will the problem evolve? In the absence of EU action, it is estimated that workers exposed to asbestos will continue to face a high risk of contracting occupational cancer or other adverse health effects. On the basis of notifications received by national authorities, the current increasing trend in the amount of asbestos-containing waste, the number of certified workers and the lifespan of the asbestos cement materials (70-80% of asbestos in EU), it is assumed that the number of exposed workers will increase by 4% every year for the next 10 years. Then the level is assumed to stabilise in years 11 – 25 (2032 - 2046), and finally, the number of exposed workers will decrease fairly quickly with an assumed annual decrease of 10% in years 26 – 40 (2046 - 2061). By 2061, virtually all asbestos-containing materials will be removed. The Commission's initiative on Renovation Wave, aiming at energy performance and consumption of buildings, improving air quality and health and living conditions, would lead to a 1% annual energy renovation rate for 2021-2022, and an increase to 1.2% per year in 2023-2025 before stabilising at least 2% per year in 2026-2029. To achieve these benefits and objectives and to achieve climate neutrality of the buildings stock, buildings need to be renovated. The Commission estimates the potential for an additional 160 000 green jobs in the construction sector in the EU by 2030. Since 85% of buildings, especially the worst performing buildings are constructed by using asbestos, this would lead to an increase in the number of exposed workers, although modest in comparison to the 4-7 million workers estimated to already being exposed to asbestos. Estimations on the numbers of cancer cases and their associated health costs over a 40-years period in case no action is taken are contained in the table 4 (baseline scenario). No. of currently exposed workers Trend in no. of exposed workers Expected no. of cancer cases Expected no. of deaths Estimated health costs (net present value) 4 100 000 – 7 300 000 Next 10 years: +4 % per year 11 – 25 years: no changes 26 – 40 years: -10 % per year 884 707 €228 million – €438 million Source: External study. RPA (2021)

As a result of current exposure, 884 cases of cancer will occur over the next 40 years (or on average 20 cases per year in the EU-27). It is also predicted that 707 workers will die from cancer attributed to occupational exposure to asbestos over the same period. In terms of health costs, between EUR 228 and 438 million are associated with the estimated cancer cases. The objective was to define a baseline scenario as close as possible to the future situation. However, it is very challenging to anticipate all the developments over such a long period. Further demographic changes, together with progress in medicine and diagnostic methods will have an impact on the increase of the life expectancy of workers exposed and improved detection of illness, therefore, the expected number of illness cases may increase. More details on the baseline scenario and the aspects taken into account in its calculation are explained in section 5.1. Regarding developments at national level, Member States usually do not inform the Commission about their intentions to revise the OEL in their legislation. However, national administrations are represented in the ACSH and are aware of the preparatory work at EU level. Therefore, it is likely that they will await its results in order not to duplicate efforts.

3Why should the EU act? 3.1Legal basis Article 153 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) empowers the EU to support and complement the activities of the Member States as regards improvements, in particular those related to the working environment to protect workers' health and safety and to adopt, by means of directives, minimum requirements for gradual implementation, having regard to the conditions and technical rules obtaining in each of the Member States. The protection of workers’ health against risks arising from exposure to asbestos is already covered by EU OSH legislation, in particular by the AWD, as well as under the REACH Regulation. The AWD lays down minimum requirements, therefore, Member States can introduce more stringent protective measures, including a lower limit value. When Member States’ protective measures go beyond the EU minimum level of health and safety at work protection, this has a positive impact on the effectiveness of the AWD, resulting in a higher level of protection for their workforce, which is the general objective of this Directive. The setting of a lower OEL implies that companies might need to invest in better preventive measures, such as vacuum cleaning and dust suppression techniques and/or individual protective equipment (e.g. masks with different filtering levels) in order to comply with the lower level. Thus, the revision of the EU limit value aims at assuring the best possible protection for all workers in the EU taking into account socio-economic and feasibility factors. 3.2Subsidiarity: Necessity and added value of EU action Due to its many historical applications, asbestos is present in buildings all across the EU. While its removal could follow a different pace depending on the age of the building stock and the strategies for addressing asbestos in every country, the growing need to enhance energy efficiency means that workers in all Member States are affected. Scientific knowledge about asbestos has developed since the last revision of the AWD in 2003. To ensure that the measures for protecting workers from exposure to asbestos are as effective as possible, the Directive needs to be kept up to date with that knowledge. Updating the AWD to take account of newer scientific evidence is an effective way to ensure that preventive measures would be updated accordingly in all Member States. Amending the AWD can only be done by action at EU level. The revision of the exposure limit value under the AWD at the EU level will not completely eliminate the differences between Member States but will lead to a greater harmonisation of limit values across Europe, as the lower the EU OEL, the lower the scope for divergences. A revised EU OEL, therefore, contributes towards a more harmonised and better protection of workers, as well as to a more levelled playing field for economic operators across the EU. The experience since 2003, when the current EU OEL was set, shows that deviations remain limited, as only a few Member States have adopted an OEL different to (lower than) the EU one. Despite a very low integration for construction services market across borders (import and export of construction services across the EU in 2016 represent only 1% of the total turnover), the level playing field for enterprises is expected to improve. Companies operating in the different EU Member States can further benefit from a streamlining of the applicable limit values, potentially providing for savings as common solutions can be adopted across facilities, as opposed to having to design site-specific solutions to meet different OEL requirements. In the construction sector, workers move from one site to another, very often in different countries. The available figures on the number of posted workers show that of the 2.05 million posted workers in 2015, around 36% or 730 000 workers were in the construction sector . Thus, EU-level action will likely bring fairer conditions for those workers and also a fairer distribution of healthcare costs for the different Members States (while posted workers would be exposed to asbestos in country A, related illness costs occurring years later are borne by their sending country B). Furthermore, the revision of limit values is very complex and requires a high level of scientific expertise. An important advantage of the revision of the OEL at EU level is that it eliminates the need for Member States to conduct their own scientific analysis, with likely substantial savings on administrative costs. These resources saved could instead be dedicated to improve further the OSH policies in each Member State. 4Objectives: What is to be achieved? 4.1General objectives This initiative contributes to the improvement of health and safety of workers pursuant to Article 153 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,. It aims at ensuring workers the right to a high level of protection of their health and safety at work, as laid down in principle 10 of the European Pillar of Social Rights, and to prevent disease and death caused by work-related cancer and other health problems according to the second key objective of the new EU Strategic framework on health and safety at work 2021-2027. 4.2Specific objectives

The specific objectives are: ·To enhance the effectiveness of the occupational exposure limit value under the AWD by updating it on the basis of scientific expertise; ·To achieve a more uniform and better protection of workers across the EU from the risks caused by asbestos exposure. The specific objectives of the initiative contribute to the SDGs on good health and well-being ( 3rd goal ) and decent work and economic growth ( 8th goal ). A positive impact is also expected for the SDG on industry, innovation and infrastructure ( 9th goal ) and on responsible production and consumption ( 12th goal ). 4.3Consistency with other EU policies Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU The objectives of the initiative are consistent with Article 2 (Right to life) and Article 31 (Right to fair and just working conditions) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights . REACH Regulation The REACH Regulation , in force since 2007, establishes among others two distinct EU regulatory approaches that are restrictions and authorisations. Since 1988 the placing on the market and use of crocidolite and of products containing it has been prohibited, and the placing on the market of products containing other asbestos forms has been restricted. Several amendments took place until the 2005 ban on the manufacture, placing on the market and use of all forms of asbestos, and of articles and mixtures containing them added intentionally. Together, the AWD and the REACH Regulation are relevant for workers protection from the risks of exposure to asbestos.



Prevention and reduction of environmental pollution by asbestos The revision of the AWD will also contribute to the achievement of the objective of Directive 87/217/EEC (prevention and reduction of environmental pollution by asbestos), in particular in respect of activities involving the demolition of buildings, structures and installations containing asbestos and the removal of asbestos and of products containing asbestos involving the releases of asbestos fibres or dust. Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan Europe's Beating Cancer Plan is a key pillar of the European Health Union , presented by President von der Leyen in November 2020. The revision of the AWD contributes to Europe's Beating Cancer Plan, through its prevention pillar with the reduction of the exposure to carcinogens in the workplace. 5What are the possible policy options? As explained above, it was agreed by all relevant stakeholders, that the OEL for asbestos should be lowered on the basis of scientific expertise. The process leading to an OEL change is summarised in figure 3. Figure 3 – Key steps in the setting/revision of Occupational Exposure Limits

As any exposure to asbestos may eventually cause an asbestos-related disease, the RAC scientific assessment opinion proposes the relation between exposure levels and the associated risk (exposure-risk relationship). This relationship, indicated in table 5, shows the risk for exposed workers at different OELs. For example, for an air concentration equivalent to the current OEL, there is a risk that 125 out of 100 000 exposed workers could develop lung cancer or mesothelioma. Table 5: Exposure-risk relationship Air concentration of asbestos (fibres/cm3 )

as measured by PCM Excess life-time cancer risk (cases per 100 000 exposed workers) 0.001 1.2 0.002 2.5 0.005 6.2 0.01 12 0.02 25 0.05 62 0.1 125 While all the ACSH interest groups unanimously agreed on the need to lower the current OEL, no consensus was reached on the limit value to be proposed. The Government Interest Group (GIG) and the Employers Interest Group (EIG) agreed on the new limit value of 0.01 f/cm3, while the Workers Interest Group (WIG) preferred a value of 0.001 f/cm3 (the same value as proposed by the European Parliament). 5.1Baseline scenario The baseline or "no policy change" option includes all relevant EU-level and national policies and measures which are assumed to continue being in force in the absence of further EU action. It factors in the existing national OELs, the current number of workers exposed and its evolution over time, the current and future exposure levels. It also takes into account the current risk management measures (including the effectiveness of protective equipment), the voluntary industry initiatives, the development of new technologies and any other relevant factors. Under the baseline scenario, the EU OEL will remain at 0.1 fibres/cm3. The summary of the no policy change option is presented in table 6. Table 6: Baseline scenario over 40 years Types of cancer caused Lung cancer Mesothelioma Laryngeal cancer Ovarian cancer No. of exposed workers 4 100 000 - 7 300 000 * Change in future exposure level No changes Change in future no. of exposed workers Next 10 years: +4% per year 11 – 25 years: no changes 26 – 40 years: -10% per year Current disease burden (CDB) – for current types of exposure situations 370 (new cases in 2021) Future disease burden (FDB) - for current types of exposure situations 804 mesothelioma and lung cancers 80 laryngeal and ovarian cancers Expected no. of deaths FBD cancer 707 Monetary value FDB cancer €228 million – €438 million Monetary value FDB other adverse health effects Not quantified Based on external study: RPA (2021) *Workforce turns over at 5% p.a.

* More workers may be exposed by passive exposure and exposure from naturally occurring asbestos at concentrations close to 0.001 fibres/cm3 or lower 5.2Options discarded at an early stage 5.2.1Guidance documents As non-regulatory alternatives, the existing guidance documents or examples of good practice could be revised and re-disseminated in cooperation with the EU-OSHA and/or the ACSH and its relevant working party. This could also include the re-launching of awareness raising campaigns for employers and workers alike on the prevention of risks arising from workers' exposure to asbestos. This option is favoured by some industry stakeholders. However, guidance documents by themselves would not be considered effective enough in reaching the objectives of this initiative. They are complementary and provide an added value to OELs. 5.2.2Revision of other provisions in the Directive

Workers’ organisations have requested, during the social partners consultation, a broader revision of the AWD, where among other things, they suggested widening the scope of the AWD to include an updated list of all known forms of fibres with similar harmful effects on human health, to eliminate the concepts of sporadic exposure and low intensity exposure, and of friable and non-friable asbestos-containing materials, and to prohibit the encapsulation and sealing of asbestos. The same requests were mirrored in the European Parliament resolution 2019/2182 (INL) concerning workers protection. While there were clear indications as to the need to update the OEL, the most recent evaluation of the AWD concluded that the directive remains highly relevant and effective. Therefore, the discussions with the ACSH and the scientific analysis focused on updating the OEL as a matter of urgency, rather than any broader review of the Directive. This does not exclude future assessments and possible revisions of the other provisions of the Directive. It should also be noted that Member States can always go beyond the minimum provisions of the Directive. Nevertheless, those requests will be addressed, as appropriate, in guidelines, which would be made available by the Commission further to the adoption of this initiative to support its implementation. 5.2.3Adapted measures for SMEs Small companies, accounting for around 99% of companies working with asbestos, should not be exempted from the scope of the initiative. Their exclusion would mean that the majority of European workers at risk of exposure to asbestos would not be covered by health and safety at work legislation, with a clear distortion and inequality in the application of the EU legislative framework and with a risk of compromising the underlying social policy objectives and fundamental rights. 5.3Policy options In addition to the baseline scenario, options for different OELs, presented in table 6, have been considered taking into account the scientific assessment done by RAC of ECHA, the opinion from the ACSH, as well as the OELs in place in the different Member States. The scientific evaluation provides a solid evidence base while the ACSH opinion provides important information for the successful implementation of the revised OEL. It should be noted that there is no OEL value below which workers would not be at risk when exposed to asbestos. Table 7: Options matrix of OELs OEL

Fibres/cm3 Comments Option 1:

Baseline scenario 0.1 Current EU OEL Option 2 0.01 Proposed by ACSH Employers and Governments interest groups Option 3 0.002 Current strictest national OEL in EU Option 4 0.001 Proposed by ACSH Workers interest group Taking as reference the air concentration of asbestos mentioned in the scientific opinion (see table 5 above), intermediary levels of 0.05 f/cm3 and 0.02 f/cm3 were discarded, as they are not sufficiently protective of workers’ health. This is supported by the fact that the Member States which have introduced a different national OEL have chosen lower levels. Moreover, ACSH members in their opinion expressed their consensus agreement on the need to substantially revise downwards the existing EU OEL. Other OEL levels were initially discussed. Lower than 0.001 f/cm3 levels do not seem to be technically feasible given the latest available technology. An OEL at 0 f/cm3 is also not possible due to the existing background levels. Asbestos is present in many settings and exposure can also take place through naturally occurring asbestos present in the environment. Ambient asbestos concentrations in rural and urban areas in the EU are therefore expected to be higher than 0 f/cm³. Intermediate OEL values between the suggested ones by the ACSH were not considered by the steering group of the external study and thus no analysis of the costs and benefits of such OELs was possible. Such OELs were also not proposed by any stakeholder or Member State. Setting an OEL below the current one implies that companies might need to move to more effective risk management measures in order to comply with the lower level. This means, in practice, investing in protective equipment (e.g. masks with different filtering levels) and/or implementing other measures, such as vacuum cleaning and dust suppression techniques. Options 2 to 4 could also have another practical implication in relation to their monitoring, as they might require replacing the methodology for measurement of asbestos fibres in the air, from the broadly used phase contrast microscopy to the more sensitive electron microscopy methodology. 6What are the impacts of the policy options?

6.1Analytical methodology The revision of the OEL is expected to result in a reduction in the occupational exposure to asbestos. The extent of such reduction depends on the value of the revised OEL, the current levels of exposure, as well as on the projected number of exposed workers in the absence of the proposed measure, i.e., the “baseline scenario”. For a given reduction in exposure levels, the expected decrease in the incidence of cancer over 40 years was calculated. This required estimating the risks of carcinogenicity and other adverse health effects, derived from the existing toxicological and epidemiological literature, as well as information about the current level of worker exposure (number of workers exposed, level, duration and frequency of exposure). The supporting study steering group (to which government, industry and worker representatives participate) discussed comprehensively the modelling underpinning the analytical part. This concerns the expression of the excess risk for lung cancer and mesothelioma mortality (combined) as a function of the fibre concentration in the air. The steering group agreed to base the calculations on the RAC-ECHA model, as this was the most up to date and appropriate. The health benefits of avoided cancer cases and deaths have been expressed in monetary terms by applying standard valuation methods, in line with the Better Regulation Toolbox guidance. Method 1 is the application of a single willingness to pay (WTP) value to each case and Method 2 is the use of disability adjusted life years (DALYs) and their monetisation. Both estimates monetise the same number of avoided cases and use identical methods for the monetisation of direct (healthcare, informal care, disruption for employers) and indirect (productivity/lost earnings ) impacts but use different approaches to assign monetary values to intangible effects (reduced quality of life, pain and suffering, etc.). These health benefits of implementing the revised OEL are calculated in terms of the costs of ill health avoided. Not all health impacts could be monetised, due to a lack of available information allowing its quantification. The estimate of the costs was made based on literature research and data obtained from stakeholders. It considers the following factors: the risk management measures (RMMs) needed to comply with the proposed OEL, the costs of these RMMs for each company, the life span of the RMMs and the number of companies. The costs of the RMMs are driven by the use of protective equipment and the staff costs of operating vacuum cleaning and dust suppression equipment. In addition, the monitoring costs for options 2 to 4 include the incremental costs of replacing phase-contrast microscopy (PCM) by electron microscopy (EM) analysis. The benefits and costs of possible OELs are measured against the baseline, meaning that only marginal costs and marginal benefits are considered (i.e., additional costs imposed by the different OEL scenarios on top of those that businesses would already have to bear under the baseline in order to comply with their existing obligations). Unless the contrary is specified, they are expressed in net present values, using 2021 as a reference. As the change to the Danish OEL intervened after the completion of the supporting study, the costs and benefits for option 2 are slightly overestimated. More information about the analytical methodology, including the sensitivity analyses performed, is available in annex 4. 6.2Impacts of the policy options 6.2.1Social impacts 6.2.1.1Health impacts for workers and families Table 8 presents the estimates of the number of cancer cases that would be avoided under each option. Option 4 (0.001 fibres/cm3) and option 3 (0.002 fibres/cm3) would reduce the number of cancer cases over the next 40 years down to 26 and 53 respectively, i.e., 858 and 831 fewer cases than under the baseline (884 cases). Revising the EU OEL at the level of option 2 (0.01 fibres/cm3) would also significantly reduce the number of cancer cases compared to the baseline (663 fewer cases). Table 8: Cancer cases avoided and health costs saved (benefits) Option 1 Baseline scenario Option 2 0.01 fibre/cm3 Option 3 0.002 fibre/cm3 Option 4 0.001 fibre/cm3 Avoided cases No avoided cases in relation to the existing situation 663 831 858 Benefits

(€ million) WTP

(Method 1) No benefits in relation to the existing situation 323 405 418 DALYs

(Method 2). No benefits in relation to the existing situation 166 208 215 Source: External study. RPA (2021) As presented in Table 8, important benefits can be expected under all options. In addition to the direct benefits to workers and their families described above, indirect benefits should also be mentioned although they have not been quantified or monetised. ·Family members of workers heavily exposed to asbestos face an increased risk of developing mesothelioma. This risk would result from exposure to asbestos fibres brought into the home on the shoes, clothes, skin and hair of workers. Therefore, the introduction of more efficient protective equipment and increased use of existing RMMs that will be required in order to comply with options 2 to 4 could help to decrease such risks. ·Measures to prevent the generation and spread of dust in demolition works can also be positive for people living or working in the surroundings. 6.2.1.2Impacts on employment

It is not expected that a significant number of companies would discontinue operations as a result of the introduction of the stricter OELs being considered. Consequently, no significant net loss of employment is predicted. Nonetheless, it is possible that some jobs may move from companies not specialised in asbestos handling dealing with activities connected with sporadic and low intensity exposure (almost any type of craftsman, including plumbers, carpenters, electricians and bricklayers, as well as general caretakers of buildings) to companies specialised in demolition or more specifically in asbestos removal. As companies not specialised in asbestos handling will most likely take on less of this work, there may be some resulting redundancies, but new jobs would be created in the more specialised companies that would likely carry out this work instead. The possibility for this to happen increases with the reduction of the OEL, with option 2 (0.01 fibre/cm3) being the one that will have less impact and option 4 (0.001 fibre/cm3) the one which can originate more transfer of work to specialised companies. Specialised companies may be able to carry out the work with greater economies of scale than the not specialised companies, and the net impact on employment may thus be small. The impacts of job transitions could be felt by the unemployed (e.g., lost wages, difficulties in finding new job), by workers (e.g., new skills and training needs to adjust to new job) and employers (e.g., the costs of recruitment and training), in particular for options 3 and 4. However, it was not possible to determine the extent of these potential job transitions, and consequently, impossible to quantify. On the other hand, the benefits of healthier staff and better working conditions can indirectly improve the reputation of the sectors and associated companies, as work with asbestos may be less perceived as a risky line of work associated with health issues. As a result of such an improvement in their public image, companies may have it easier to recruit and retain staff, reducing the cost of recruitment and increasing the productivity of workers. 6.2.2Economic impacts 6.2.2.1Impact on businesses, including SMEs The costs for businesses to comply with a stricter EU OEL for asbestos (‘compliance costs’) are mainly the result of the costs incurred to put in place the additional risk management measures. There is also a possibility that the reduction of the OEL will have an impact on activities subject to the AWD Article 3(3) waiver. This article waives the requirement regarding notification and health surveillance. The lowering of the OEL in the Netherlands and France did not result in a significant increase in the number of notified contracts or workers under health surveillance. Danish authorities also do not expect a significant increase of the number of notifications (short-term and low impacts from asbestos) as a consequence of its recently lowered OEL. However, such potential impact has been quantified. Both the costs of new RMMs and the costs related to the waiver (notifications and health surveillance) count for the vast majority of the total compliance costs. Other costs that could arise would be much more limited. These include the costs of training to ensure the correct use of the new protective equipment and the correct follow-up of the new risk management measures put in place, as well as, and monitoring costs. The amount of estimated one-off costs is limited. Around 90% of the calculated costs are recurrent. Table 9: Main costs for businesses (million EUR) Option 2 0.01 fibre/cm3 Option 3 0.002 fibre/cm3 Option 4 0.001 fibre/cm3 Additional RMMs 12 492 52 108 58 282 Health surveillance 7 290 14 570 21 860 Notification Low estimate 650 1 310 2 610 High estimate 2 180 4 350 6 530 The total costs for new protective equipment and other risk management measures (a) are estimated to be around EUR 12 billion under option 2 (0.01 fibre/cm3). For options 3 (0.002 fibre/cm3) and 4 (0.001 fibre/cm3) they amount to some EUR 52 billion and EUR 58 billion, respectively. The estimated costs of notification and health surveillance are much lower. However, they are subject to more uncertainty for the reasons mentioned above. In addition, the notification system is administered by the responsible authority of the Member State (Article 4 AWD) and it is therefore difficult to assess if and to what extent lowering the OEL will significantly impact on the number of notified contracts or workers under health surveillance, nor is possible to anticipate the potential changes Member States might decide to introduce in their system to respond to a potential increase of notifications (or, more generally, due to the growing digitisation and development of eGoverment services). In understanding the costs, it is also important to take into account that they spread over a period of 40 years and represent the total costs for all the companies dealing with asbestos in the EU (around 1.55 million companies). As shown in table 9, the average costs per company over 40 years are around EUR 15 000, EUR 46 000 and EUR 57 000 under options 2, 3 and 4, respectively. These average costs are expected to be higher for companies dealing more intensively and frequently with asbestos in articles such as trains, vehicles, vessels or aircraft (i.e. around 350 companies out of the total of more than 1.5 million companies dealing with asbestos). They would deal with costs between EUR 355 221 and EUR 2 577 759 over 40 years, depending on the options. On the other side, companies in the building and construction sector, not specialised in asbestos handling, dealing with activities connected with sporadic and low-intensity exposure would face significantly lower average costs over 40 years (between EUR 12 266 and EUR 38 280, depending on the options). To assess the proportionality of such costs, total compliance costs are put in relation to the turnover (‘cost/turnover ratio’) at companies’ level. The ratio of costs/turnover for small companies is greater than for medium and large companies under all options. As shown in table 6 of annex 6, under option 2, almost all companies would have a cost/turnover ratio lower than 1%, which means that that option should not have a significant impact on business. Only small companies from three sectors (repair of electrical equipment, repair and maintenance of ships and boats, and maintenance and repair of motor vehicles, i.e. 0.02% of all companies dealing with asbestos), would face a cost/turnover ratio between 2 and 4%. Under options 3 and 4, the impacts would be higher and some companies (namely in the repair of electrical equipment sector) might have to dedicate up to 28.5% of their turnover to compliance costs. The costs remain largely proportionate in the sector concentrating most of the concerned companies (construction ). In that sector, only for small companies under the NACE ‘Other building completion and finishing’ activity category, the cost/turnover ratio would be over 10% for the two stricter options (12% for option 3 and 13% for option 4). More information on the cost/turnover ratio per sector and size of companies is available in Annex 6.

The Netherlands, France, Germany and Denmark already have OELs at least 10 times lower than the current EU limit value. Companies operating in these three Member States should therefore not face additional costs under option 2. With regard to option 3, companies operating in France and Germany and Denmark would face additional costs, while under option 4, companies in all Member States would have additional costs to comply with the associated OEL. Although more limited in quantitative terms, setting a stricter EU OEL for asbestos could also bring benefits to businesses, such us decreasing payments related to sick leave, reduced absenteeism or decreasing insurance premiums. As shown in table 9, companies’ saved costs are estimated between EUR 1.7 million to EUR 2.1 million, which means that the choice of the option would not have a strong influence on the level of benefits for companies. Furthermore, other benefits that cannot be easily monetised should also be considered such as the indirect effects on the reputation of the sectors and associated companies (asbestos could be less perceived as a risky line of work associated with health issues). 6.2.2.2Impact on competition and the single market Most companies should be able to assume the additional costs of complying with an EU OEL at the level of option 2, while some of them, in particular among the small and medium-sized enterprises, could face more difficulties under option 3 or 4. Most of the costs are likely to be passed on to the customers. Consequently, the latter could be forced to postpone or avoid asbestos removal, which could have an effect on some companies, in particular among the small companies, which could be forced to cease their activities. However, experience in Germany, where a stricter OEL is effective since 2008, does not seem to point in that direction. According to the external study, the increase in the amount of asbestos-containing waste in recent years would indicate a more general increase in removal activities. Therefore, no significant number of companies is expected to cease their activities under the different options envisaged in this impact assessment. However, some companies operating on activities connected with sporadic and low intensity exposure (almost any type of craftsman, including plumbers, carpenters, electricians and bricklayers, as well as general caretakers of buildings) might decide not to make investments in risk management measures, especially under the most stringent option. These activities would then be undertaken by specialised activities, leading to a more concentration of the market. Having said that, the impact on competition is expected to be limited. Furthermore, since the costs to comply with any new limit value will be higher, it could have impacts on the single market since potential new entrants to the market could be deterred because of the compliance costs, in particular among SMEs under option 3 and 4. On the other hand, a more harmonised level of protection would facilitate businesses operations across borders, including those related to posting of workers in the construction sector, as they will not have to adopt different RMMs when they provide services in different Member States. 6.2.2.3Indirect economic impacts This section presents impacts on research and development, consumers, competitiveness. The assessment is qualitative as the required data to quantify those impacts was not available. Research and development (R&D) are key activities in an industry’s capacity to develop new products and produce existing ones more efficiently and sustainably, in a way that protects the safety of workers. The ability to engage in R&D activities is likely to be affected by the availability of financial resources to invest in R&D; the availability of human resources to conduct R&D activities; and regulatory environment conducive to investing in R&D activities. In general, the investment in R&D in the construction sector is rather low. However, we could reasonably expect that options 3 and 4 could potentially weigh negatively on R&D expenditures as companies, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, will have to dedicate a larger share of their turnovers in RMMs to meet stricter OEL. The impacts of option 2 would be smaller and more resources can be expected to remain available to invest in research and innovation. Consumers may be impacted as it is expected that companies will pass on the additional costs arising from having to comply with stricter OELs to the consumers (see 6.2.2.1 for details). Consequently, it cannot be excluded that some consumers may be forced to delay or abandon their plans to remove asbestos. As the compliance costs for options 3 and 4 are much higher than for option 2, their negative impacts on consumers would also be higher not only in terms of higher prices, but also in terms of health impacts and missed energy savings of delaying renovations. The risk of an increase in unauthorised work, due to the increase in prices for consumers, should also be noted. The revision of the OEL would put the EU at the forefront in the protection of workers against asbestos as its OEL would be the strictest in the world. Presently, only Switzerland (0.01 fibres/cm3) and Japan (0.03+ and 0.003++ fibres/cm3) have stricter OELs than the current EU OEL, while the US, Canada, China, India and Russia have less strict requirements. The impacts on international competitiveness of EU companies under all options would be however limited. As most of the activities involving exposure to asbestos are required to be undertaken in-situ, third-country competitors would need to operate under the regulations of the EU. Consequently, they could not benefit from any competitive advantages from a less strict requirements in their country of origin. Only the very limited number of companies working with asbestos in articles (such as aircraft, trains, ships…) could see their international competitiveness affected (provided that third countries’ lower prices compensate for the costs of moving the article there). 6.2.2.4Impact on public authorities The benefits to the public authorities from the avoided costs of ill health relative to the baseline are composed of cost of treatment (healthcare treatment costs borne by public authorities) and tax revenue. Costs to the public authorities will include transposing regulations to accommodate changes in OEL, changing guidelines (including recommended measures to ensure occupational exposure concentrations are well below the OEL) and enforcement, monitoring and adjudication costs. Enforcement will take place according to already existing mechanisms for compliance improvement and enforcement, including informal conversations with employers as well as formal correspondence and legal enforcement action. The costs under the enforcement, monitoring and adjudication costs category derive exclusively from the processing of new notifications . Usually, national inspectors organise visits in companies to ensure the employers’ compliance with several OSH provisions (for example, workplace transport, slips and trips, machinery safety, stress) rather than only checking the conformity with the OELs. Thus, is not expected that additional resources on enforcement, a Member State competence, are needed as a result of the adoption of a stricter OEL was not possible to determine although will receive (or demand) greater resourcing and priority because of an OEL being set. Table 8 below shows the estimated benefits and costs over a period of 40 years (2021-2061). While costs are higher than benefits for all options, it needs to be noted that annual net costs vary between EUR 35 and 105 million for all 27 Member States. In addition, as for the notification costs estimated for companies, the costs attributed to the processing of new notifications by public authorities (the bulk of the estimated costs) needs to be treated with caution given the uncertainties regarding the actual impact of OEL changes on national notification systems. As in the case of businesses, a low and a high estimate have been calculated on the basis of the same assumptions regarding the potential increase in the number of notifications.

Table 10: Costs and benefits relative to the baseline for taxpayers/public authorities (present value over 40 years) Option 2 0.01 fibre/cm3 Option 3 0.002 fibre/cm3 Option 4 0.001 fibre/cm3 Benefits €3 400 000 €4 300 000 €4 500 000 Costs: Transposition Guidelines Enforcement, monitoring and adjudication costs: Low estimate High estimate €750 000* €750 000* € 420 000 000 € 1 400 000 000 €1 300 000 €1 300 000 € 840 000 000 €2 800 000 000 €1 350 000 €1 350 000 € 1 680 000 000 €4 200 000 000 Net benefit (benefits – costs) Low estimate High estimate -€ 418 100 000 -€ 1 398 100 000 -€ 838 300 000 -€ 2 798 300 000 -€ 1 678 200 000 -€ 4 198 200 000 * DK was included when calculating these figures. As DK has now a lower OEL, these figures would be €30,000 lower. Source: External Study. RPA 2021 As to the impacts per EU Member State, countries with established OELs at the level or lower of the different options will be less affected than those having higher OEL in place. Transposition costs would incur in 24 Member States under option 2 (all except FR, NL and DK), 26 under Option 3 and in all MS under Option 4. 6.2.3Environmental impacts Releases of asbestos are believed to be relatively low, despite little measured data on this, based on the existing regulation on management of both asbestos waste and demolition/maintenance activities involving asbestos in buildings. Due to these low release levels the environmental impacts of asbestos are believed to be relatively low in spite of asbestos fibres persistence and toxicity. In addition, further RMMs, due to comply with a stricter OEL may help to marginally improve environmental exposure to asbestos however significant differences are unlikely to be recognised. 6.2.3.1Climate Change impacts Asbestos has the property of absorbing carbon dioxide molecules dissolved in rainwater or floating through the air , thus can play a role in climate change. However, as releases into the environment will be low, this initiative is not expected to have an impact on climate change. On the other hand, extreme weather conditions due to climate change may increase erosion effects of the still existing asbestos materials (e.g. roofs sheets and other external building materials containing asbestos). As companies could pass additional costs from stricter OELs to consumers, potential negative impacts on renovation and green objectives (e.g. postponed renovations and missed energy savings) should be considered. Those negative impacts will be greater the more stringent the OEL is. 6.2.4Impacts on fundamental rights All options align with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Article 31 of the Charter, states that workers have the right to fair and just working conditions that respect their health, safety and dignity. The initiative for lowering the OEL will thus have a direct positive impact on fundamental rights, as it will further improve the protection of workers from the health risks posed by asbestos exposure. Taking into account the avoided deaths of the implementation of a stricter OEL the right of life (Article 2) will also be positively impacted. 6.2.5Contribution to sustainable development The initiative will contribute positively for SDGs on good health and well-being ( 3rd goal ) and decent work and economic growth ( 8th goal ). A positive impact is also expected for the SDG on industry, innovation and infrastructure ( 9th goal ) and to responsible production and consumption ( 12th goal ). 6.2.6Impacts on digitalisation While the impact on digitalisation was not analysed in detail, it can be expected to be positive with, for example, the development of artificial intelligence tools combined with measurement techniques for improvement on fibres counting or the development of robotic extraction of asbestos from buildings. 6.2.7Administrative impacts Public authorities could incur administrative costs if, for example, they have to do more reporting to the EU or there are other additional administrative burdens. According to the estimates, no significant additional reporting is anticipated and any other administrative burdens for Member States authorities than those already referred in table 10 could not be identified and, therefore, quantified. Moreover, the revision of the OEL at EU level eliminates the need for Member States to conduct their own scientific analysis to independently determine the acceptable exposure level, with likely substantial savings in administrative costs. Exact costs of this type of exercise are difficult to establish but would be significant given the level of scientific and technical expertise required. The administrative costs for companies would arise from the burden of arranging additional measurements. Those measurements are in majority performed by a specialised company and the costs related to the outsourcing of this activity are considered as compliance costs. The possible additional measurements associated with a lower limit value would therefore entail very limited additional administrative burden for the companies. Under option 2, those additional administrative costs are estimated at EUR 15 million over 40 years, while under options 3 and 4, it would costs EUR 30 million and EUR 60 million, respectively.

The planned revision of the AWD does not introduce changes to the notification system. Lowering the OEL can indirectly increase costs for MS and businesses if the number of notifications increase. This is discussed in the section 6.2.2.1 above. Although most asbestos-related activities are performed by companies working in one Member State only, larger and to lesser extent medium-sized companies with facilities in different Member States could benefit from administrative simplification, owing to a harmonised set of compliance requirements. 6.2.7.1´One in, One out’ approach Following the commitment of the Commission to follow the ‘one in, one out’ approach, new administrative burdens should be compensated by reducing burdens in the same policy area. As the initiative will not change any provisions of the AWD other than the OEL level, no additional administrative obligations will be introduced. However, as explained above, lowering the OEL could mean that more activities might not be able to comply with the waiver of the requirements regarding notification for sporadic and of low intensity exposures (AWD Article 3(3)). Thus, two estimations of the administrative costs linked to possible new notifications have been done and detailed in Table 9 and 10. Based on the experience of Netherlands and France, and the expectations of Danish authorities, it is concluded that additional notification costs, if any, would be closer to the lower estimate. The other administrative costs presented in the above analysis (linked to measurements) do not fall under the one-in, one-out, as they are explicitly exempted from the offsetting by the Better Regulation Tool#58. As regards to potential savings, companies active in Member States with different OELs could benefit from the greater harmonisation of protection levels. However, those savings are not expected to be significant. No administrative cost savings are expected for citizens. The table below summarises all the assessed impacts. Table 11: Multi-criteria analysis on asbestos (all impacts over 40 years and additional to the baseline) Impact Stakeholders affected OEL options (fibres/cm3) 0.01 0.002 0.001 Economic impacts Direct costs – Compliance, monitoring and administrative costs Risk management measures and discontinuation costs (one-off and recurrent) Companies € 12 492 million € 52 108 million € 58 282 million Health surveillance Companies € 7 290 million € 14 570 million € 21 860 million Notification: Low estimate High estimate Companies € 650 million € 2 180 million € 1 310 million € 4 350 million € 2 610 million € 6 530 million Training costs (on the correct application of new RMM). Companies € 530 million € 1 100 million € 2 000 million Monitoring (sampling and analysis) Companies € 110 million € 560 million € 640 million Direct costs - administrative burdens (linked to monitoring) Companies € 15 million € 30 million € 60 million Total Direct Costs Low estimate High estimate Companies € 21 087 million € 22 617 million € 69 678 million € 72 718million € 85 452 million € 89 372 million Total Direct costs

(average per company) Companies < € 15 000 < € 46 000 < € 57 000 Direct costs - enforcement costs Transposition costs Public authorities € 0.75 million € 1.3 million € 1.4 million Costs of changing guidelines Public authorities € 0.75 million € 1.3 million € 1.4 million Enforcement, monitoring, adjudication costs Low estimate High estimate Public authorities € 420 million € 1 400 million € 840 million € 2 800 million € 1 680 million € 4 200 million Direct benefits Savings in relation to e.g. sick leaves, staff replacement Companies €1.7 million €2.0 million €2.1 million Savings in terms of healthcare or lost taxes Public authorities €3.4 million €4.3 million €4.5 million Other economic aspects Single market: competition No. of company closures No closures No closures No closures Single market: consumers Consumers Customers of companies working with asbestos in each of the sectors (e.g. developers, public authorities, landowners, building owners, travel companies etc.) are therefore likely to face rises in prices at lower OELs. It cannot be ruled out that some clients may delay or abandon plans to remove asbestos.

There is some risk of increase in unauthorised work. Single market: internal market Companies Limited Negative impacts expected

In some sectors, the costs of the lower two OEL options are significant (>20%), especially SMEs International competitiveness Companies Limited negative impact Specific MSs/regions MSs that would have to change OELs All MS except France and the Netherlands All MS except the Netherlands All MS Social impacts Benefits Reduced cases of cancers Workers & families 663 830 860 Savings of ill health, incl. intangible costs (M2 to M1) Workers & families €166 – 323 million €208 – 405 million €215 – 418 million Employment Jobs lost No significant net loss of employment is being predicted at the OEL option of 0.01 fibres/cm3. Environmental impacts Environmental releases Environment No impact/limited positive impact Notes: All costs/benefits are incremental to the baseline (Present Values over 40 years).. 7How do the options compare? The comparison tables used to compare the different options against the baseline scenario in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, feasibility and coherence apply the following ranking symbols: '0' – baseline, '≈' – similar to baseline, from '+' more efficient/effective or coherent than baseline to '+++' – much more efficient/effective or coherent than baseline; from '-' – less efficient/effective or coherent than baseline to '- - -' – much less efficient/effective or coherent than baseline. With regard to the effectiveness, the options are analysed from the perspective of the prevention of deaths and other adverse health effects. Since the measurement methods needed to monitor compliance with the different OEL options have a direct impact on effectiveness, they will be considered for the analysis. All the OELs options will significantly reduce the number of cancer cases. Taking into account the number of cancer cases avoided, option 4 would have the most positive impact on prevention of asbestos occupational exposure-related cancers compared to the baseline scenario. However, the ACSH governments and employers interest groups’ endorsement of option 2 should facilitate the implementation and enforcement of this option, helping to achieve the objectives. With regard to the measurements methods needed to monitor compliance with the different OELs options. Option 2 is possible using either PCM or EM. Option 3 measurement will require EM (in line with the Dutch experience). To measure compliance with option 4, the best currently available EM measurement technique must be used and even then, while it may be possible to measure such a low exposure level in clean rural environments, it is not necessarily the case in dusty environments (see Annex 8). Therefore, while option 4 and option 3 are slightly more effective (saving more 5-4 cancer cases per year compared to option 2) in terms of avoiding cancer cases, option 2 offers the best balance between prevention and practical implementation. With regard to the efficiency, the options are ranked according to the increase on the protection of workers at the EU level while preventing closures and other severe disadvantages for the businesses. Strictly looking at the monetised impacts, costs outweigh the benefits for all the assessed options. The cost/benefit ratio for option 2 is 70 (EUR 24 bn cost vs. EUR 330 m benefit) while for option 3 is 190 (EUR 76 bn cost vs. EUR 410 m benefit) and for option 4 is 220 (EUR 94 bn cost vs. EUR 420 m benefit). As indicated above, costs and benefits are calculated in terms of net present value using a discount factor. Since the benefits materialise later in the future (due to the long latency period of cancer), they are particularly sensitive to the discount factor used. A sensitivity analysis calculated the impact of i) a declining rate (4% the first 20 years, 3% the remaining 20 years) and ii) a discount rate of 1.5% for the benefits (in line with the UK approach for risk to life values). In both cases, the relative increase in benefits leads to a better cost/benefit ratio for the option 2. In the first case, the ratio is reduced around 29%; in the second case, around 75%. The efficiency is also analysed from the perspective of the costs/turnover ratios, as it is important to ensure that additional costs are bearable even for smaller businesses. This analysis shows a less negative picture, as explained above. Only for option 4, smaller business in certain sectors, might be seriously impacted. Consequently, option 4 is ranked as the least efficient. Option 2 is the most balanced option between adequate protection of workers at the EU level and direct costs for companies (including SMEs). With regard to coherence, the options are analysed on the basis of how coherent they are with other EU policies (in particular the Charter for Fundamental Rights, the European Pillar of Social Rights and its Action Plan, the Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, the Zero Pollution Action Plan and REACH). Coherence with general EU priorities and policies, as well as with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, goes hand in hand with the level of the OELs. All the options ensure coherence of the AWD with other EU policy objectives and increase complementarity with REACH. More deaths could be prevented with stricter OEL levels so coherence could be assessed slightly better for options 3 or 4. However, companies could pass additional costs from stricter OELs to consumers with potential negative impacts for renovation and green objectives (e.g. delay of renovations and missed energy savings). Therefore, the stricter OEL options are assessed as slightly less coherent with the objectives of Green Deal or Renovation Wave in comparison to baseline. This leads to more or less the same total coherence of options.

Table 1: comparison of options Criteria Option 1: Baseline Option 2: 0.01 fibres/cm3 Option 3: 0.002 fibres/cm3 Option 4: 0.001 fibres/cm3 Effectiveness 0 ++ ++ + Efficiency 0 - - - - - - Coherence 0 + + + 8Preferred option Taking into account the comparison of options as well as the positions of the different interest groups of the ACSH, the preferred option is: Option 2. OEL equal to 0.01 f/cm3 as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA). In addition, taking note of the technical developments, as well as the need to measure much lower exposure levels to check the compliance with the potential revised OEL, all Interest Groups agreed that there is a need to stepwise replace the PCM (currently the reference method for quantification of asbestos fibres in the air at workplace) by a more modern and sensitive methodology based on EM. As it is possible to measure an OEL equal to 0.01 f/cm3 with PCM, no transition period is needed for implementation of the OEL. However, the Government Interest Group (GIG) and the Employers Interest Group (EIG) underlined that some time will be needed to implement a new measurement methodology since many Member States still use PCM. Therefore, such time would allow laboratories to acquire new equipment, to train the technicians and to organise interlaboratory comparison. Thus, following the recommendation of the GIG and EIG, it is expected that a change of the preferred method (electronic measurement techniques) could occur in a time frame of 4-5 years.As explained in the section 6.1, costs calculations for option 2 already factor this change in. In any case moving from one method to another will remain voluntary as the proposal for a revised Directive will not impose EM as reference method. 8.1Overall impact of the preferred option 8.1.1Impact on workers The preferred option should result in benefits in terms of avoided work-related cases of cancer, and related monetised health benefits including avoidance of intangible costs such as the reduced quality of life, the suffering of the workers and their family. It is estimated that 663 cases of cancer (lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer and ovarian cancer) could be prevented, and its monetised health benefit is assessed as between EUR 166 million and EUR 323 million. In addition, the wider public may benefit from reductions in the generation and spreading of asbestos dust in surrounding areas as a result of increased/improved RMMs. 8.1.2Impact on business As regards costs, the preferred option will affect operating costs for companies which will have to adjust the working practices to comply with the new OEL. Those costs will consist of incremental costs of RMMs (including RPE), cost of notification and medical surveillance, monitoring costs and training costs. The compliance costs to business over the next 40 years are estimated to be about EUR 21 billion, although nearly half of those (EUR 8 billion) are related to notification and health surveillance obligations subject to the art. 3(3) waiver. Costs are likely, to a large extent, to be passed on to the customers. However, they may result in some companies abandoning the market and the transfer of the relevant activities to other companies. Despite this, the analysis of the preferred option did not identify those as significant impacts. As explained in section 6.2.2.1, only a few small companies in a limited number of sectors (e.g., repair of electrical equipment) are estimated to face a moderate negative impact. The benefits of healthier staff could have indirect effects on the reputation of the relevant companies, as work with asbestos may be less perceived as a risky line of work associated with health issues. As a result of such an improvement in their public image, companies may find it easier to recruit and retain staff, reducing the cost of recruitment and increasing the productivity of workers. 8.1.3Impact on SMEs Small companies, which account for 99.32% of companies working with asbestos in all sectors, are the ones that will more likely be affected by the reduction in the OEL. With the exception of the SMEs in the sectors of repair of electrical equipment, repair and maintenance of ships and boats, and maintenance and repair of motor vehicles (i.e. 0.02% of all companies dealing with asbestos), where the costs can have a small impact (between 2 and 4% of turnover) the big majority of SMEs will not be impacted by necessary cost increases. Therefore, SMEs specificities, their limitations and particular challenges have been duly taken into account in the overall analysis presented in section 6.

8.1.4Impact on competition and competitiveness Companies already compliant with an OEL lower than the current EU OEL will be less impacted. This is particularly relevant for companies working in France, the Netherlands, and Germany where OELs are similar or lower than the preferred OEL option (0.01 fibres/cm3). However, whilst this would make them more cost-competitive against companies working elsewhere in the EU or beyond, most of the work done with asbestos is carried out in-situ. 8.2Subsidiarity, proportionality and REFIT In view of the available scientific evidence, it is necessary to review the OEL of asbestos. The protection of workers health against risks arising from exposure to asbestos is already covered by EU legislation, in particular by the AWD, which can be amended only at EU level. The preferred option builds on long and intensive discussions with all stakeholders (representatives from workers’ associations, representatives from employers' associations, and representatives from governments), which helps to ensure that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality are well respected. Updating the AWD is an effective way to ensure that preventive measures would be updated accordingly in all Member States, providing a uniform level of minimum requirements designed to guarantee a better standard of health and safety and thus minimising the disparities in health and safety protection levels of workers between Member States. Furthermore, the preferred option also offers a certain margin of flexibility to Member States. In accordance with Article 153(4) of the TFEU, setting or revising OELs at the EU level does not prevent Member States from maintaining or introducing more stringent protective measures (i.e. lower limit values). However, Member States cannot set a higher limit value than the EU OEL set in the article 8 of the AWD. Updating the AWD therefore complies with the principle of subsidiarity. The proportionality principle is respected as the preferred option is limited to revising the limit value for asbestos by amending Article 8 to the AWD on the basis of the scientific and technical data available, as provided by the 3rd recital of the AWD. Companies have already the obligation to reduce to a minimum workers’ exposure to asbestos (Article 6 of the Asbestos at Work Directive). The OEL provides a reference not to exceed but it is not a brand-new obligation. This initiative aims to make a step forward to achieve the objectives set to improve health and safety of workers. Furthermore, the preferred option is endorsed by employers, meaning that although the quantified costs may be higher than benefits, businesses consider it a proportionate option. When considering the costs per company, in average, they will incur a cost of EUR 375 per year on average. However as referred in section 8.1.3, small companies from a few specific sectors (repair and maintenance of electrical equipment, vessels, and motor vehicles) may face substantial new compliance costs. Despite this, as most of the costs are likely to be passed to consumers, no significant number of companies is expected to cease their activities. The preferred option includes a recommendation for a change of the method to be commonly used for monitoring, which have also been discussed by the relevant stakeholders. The preferred option has the better cost/benefit ratio and the estimated cost/turnover ratio is small for all companies and sectors. The aim of this initiative is to ensure a balanced approach, i.e., to prevent companies from closures or severe economic disadvantages while providing an adequate protection of the workers at the EU level. The preferred option is considered the most balanced and justified in light of the accrued and longer-term benefits in terms of reducing health risks arising from workers' exposure to asbestos and saving lives. Finally, regarding the simplification and the efficiency improvement of the existing legislation, the preferred option eliminates the need for Member States to conduct their own scientific analysis to revise the OEL. Employers also benefit from the simplification in ensuring legal compliance (more homogenous limit values across the EU), particularly those operating in different Member States. 9How will actual impacts be monitored and evaluated? 9.1Monitoring arrangements The table below presents the core indicators for each operational objective and the data sources for the monitoring of the core indicators. Table 13: Indicators and monitoring arrangements/data sources Operational objective Specific Objective Indicators Monitoring arrangements/data sources for monitoring indicators The reduction of occupational diseases and occupational related cancer cases in the EU To enhance the effectiveness of the occupational exposure limit value under the AWD by updating it on the basis of scientific expertise The number of occupational diseases and occupational related cancer cases in the EU The data sources for the monitoring of this indicator are: -data that could be collected under European Occupational Diseases Statistics (EODS) - Experimental statistics of Eurostat, as well as on other non-cancer work-related health problems and illnesses in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008. -data notified by employers to the competent national authorities on cases of cancer identified in accordance with national law and/or practice as resulting from occupational exposure to asbestos in accordance with Art. 18 (2) of Directive 2009/148/EC, and which may be accessed by the Commission in accordance with Article 18 of Directive 2004/37/EC. -data submitted by Member States in the national implementation reports according to Art. 22 of Directive 2009/148/EC on the implementation of the Directive, submitted in accordance with Art. 17a of Directive 89/391/EEC. The next evaluation will cover the period from 2018-2022. The reduction of costs related to occupational cancer for economic operators and for social security systems in the EU To enhance the effectiveness of the occupational exposure limit value under the AWD by updating it on the basis of scientific expertise The costs related to occupational cancer for economic operators (e.g. loss of productivity) and social security systems in the EU. The monitoring of this indicator will require the comparison of the expected figures on the burden of occupational cancer in terms of economic loss and health care costs and the collected figures on these matters after the adoption of the revision. The productivity loss and health care costs can be established on the basis of the data on the number of occupational cancer cases and the number of occupational cancer deaths (the arrangements for the collection of the data on occupational cancer cases are described supra in this table).

A two-stage compliance assessment (transposition and conformity checks) will be carried out by the Commission for the transposition of the limit values. At workplace level, there is an obligation for employers to ensure that the exposure does not go above the limit value set out in article 8 of the AWD. The monitoring of application and enforcement will be undertaken by national authorities, in particular the national labour inspectorates. At EU level, the Committee of Senior Labour Inspectors (SLIC) informs the Commission regarding problems relating to the enforcement of Directive 2009/148/EC. While collection of reliable data in this area is complex, the Commission and EU-OSHA are actively working on improving data quality and availability so that the actual impacts of the proposed initiative could be measured in a more accurate way and additional indicators could be developed in the future (e.g. in relation to mortality caused by occupational cancer). Ongoing projects include cooperation with national authorities on the European Occupational Diseases Statistics (EODS) data collection and Workers' exposure survey on cancer risk factors to be implemented by EU-OSHA. Legislative action needs to be followed up through effective implementation at the workplace. Companies have a broad range of tools, information and good practices provided by EU-OSHA in the context of a Healthy Workplaces Campaign on dangerous substances. 9.2Evaluation arrangements In accordance with Article 17a of Directive 89/391/EEC, every five years, Member States are required to submit a report to the Commission on the practical implementation of the EU OSH Directives, including Directive 2009/148/EC. Using these reports as a basis, the Commission is required to evaluate the implementation of Directive 2009/148/EC and, to inform the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work of the results of this evaluation and, if necessary, of any initiatives to improve the operation of the regulatory framework.

9.3 Annex 1: Procedural information 1.Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references Lead DG: Directorate-General Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, Unit C2 - Health and Safety at Work, EU-OSHA. 2.Organisation and timing An Occupational Safety and Health Inter-services Steering Group (OSH ISG) was created involving twelve services (SG, SJ, BUDG, GROW, ENER, ENV, RTD, CNECT, EAC, SANTE, JUST, ESTAT) as well as EU-OSHA. The OSH ISG was consulted and invited to participate in a first meeting on 02/02/2022. A second consultation of the OSH ISG on the revised draft IAR run from until XX March 2022. DG EMPL took most of comments into consideration in the revised version of the draft IAR. This revised version of the draft IAR was sent to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) on 30 March 2022. 3.Consultation of the RSB The draft IAR for this initiative was submitted to the RSB on 30 March 2022 and the meeting with the RSB has taken place on 27 April 2022. Following this meeting, the RSB gave a positive opinion with reservations. The table below summarises the RSB comments as well as the revisions introduced in response to them: RSB opinion’s comments Corresponding changes to the draft IAR The report should present clearly the rationale for intervention at this point of time. It should provide, upfront, the relevant evaluation findings and explain to what extent the current OEL has been effective and why there is a need to act now. It should explain the content of the Risk Assessment Committee of the European Chemicals Agency (RAC ECHA) scientific opinion. It should clarify what the new scientific evidence entails and what its implications are. It should indicate upfront the degree of consensus among stakeholders on the need to act. Section 1 was further developed to give upfront information on the relevant evaluation findings and content of the scientific assessment done by ECHA-RAC. Information of the last in-depth evaluation of the AWD and latest assessment of the implementation of the EU occupational safety and health (OSH) directives for the period from 2013 to 2017 was included in section 1. The fact that there is no safe exposure level for asbestos is clarified in section 1 Information on the consensus agreement by the tripartite Advisory Committee for Safety and Health at Work (ACSH) on the need to lower the current OEL was introduced both in section 1 and section 2. The report should be clear, upfront, on the limited scope of the initiative, given that the occupational exposure limit is only one aspect of the protection required to reduce workers’ exposure to asbestos. Given the political expectations expressed in particular by the European Parliament, it should explain why it discards other measures that would fall within the scope of the Directive. The scope of the initiative, enhancing the effectiveness of the asbestos occupational exposure limit value, is more clearly indicated in section 1. A dedicated point (5.2.2 - Revision of other provisions in the Directive) was included with further explanation on other measures discarded that would fall within the scope of the Directive. Given that legal basis provides only for the setting of minimum harmonisation measures, the report should better explain how the revision of the exposure limit will lead to greater harmonisation of limit values across the EU. It should discuss how far Member States will be able to deviate from the EU OEL and how this may affect achieving a level playing field. It should examine how the legacy building stock and historic national building regulations have led to differing exposure risks across Member States. The