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
Date: 2022-09-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: asbestos, cancer, carcinogenic substance, disease prevention, health risk, occupational safety

EN 

  EN 

   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 

1 

2 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ................................................. 1 

PROBLEM DEFINITION ....................................................................................................... 3 

2.1  What is/are the problems?............................................................................................. 3 
2.2  What are the problem drivers? ...................................................................................... 6 
2.3  How will the problem evolve? .................................................................................... 12 

3  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? ........................................................................................... 14 

3.1  Legal basis .................................................................................................................. 14 
Subsidiarity: Necessity and added value of EU action ............................................... 15 
3.2 

4 

OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ................................................................. 16 

4.1  General objectives ...................................................................................................... 16 
4.2 
Specific objectives ...................................................................................................... 16 
4.3  Consistency with other EU policies ............................................................................ 16 

5  WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE POLICY OPTIONS? ........................................................... 18 

5.1  Baseline Scenario ........................................................................................................ 19 
5.2  Options discarded at an early stage ............................................................................. 20 
Policy options ............................................................................................................. 21 
5.3 

6  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? ............................................. 23 

6.1  Analytical methodology .............................................................................................. 23 
Impacts of the policy options ...................................................................................... 24 
6.2 

7 

8 

HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? .............................................................................. 35 

PREFERRED OPTION ......................................................................................................... 37 

8.1  Overall impact of the preferred option........................................................................ 38 
Subsidiarity, proportionality and REFIT .................................................................... 39 
8.2 

9 

HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? .................... 40 

9.1  Monitoring arrangements ............................................................................................ 40 
9.2  Evaluation arrangements............................................................................................. 42 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION .......................................................................................... 43 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ...................................................................................... 48 
ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? ......................................................................................... 58 
ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS .................................................................................................. 61 
ANNEX 5: USES, ACTIVITIES AND EXPOSURES ................................................................................. 77 
ANNEX 6: RELEVANT SECTORS & SME´S TEST .............................................................................. 101 
ANNEX 7: EXISTING GUIDELINES AND VOLUNTARY INDUSTRY INITIATIVES ................................ 112 
ANNEX 8: MEASUREMENT METHOD .............................................................................................. 115 

 
 
 
Glossary  

Asbestos-containing material 
Arithmetic mean 
Assigned Protection Factor 
Asbestos at Work Directive 
Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin in Germany 
Chemical Agents Directive 
Current disease burden 
The Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive 
Directorate General 
European Commission 
European Federation of Building and Woodworkers 
European Economic Community 
European Chemicals Agency 
European Occupational Diseases Statistics 
Exposure Risk Relationship 
European Trade Union Institute 
European Construction Industry Federation 
European Union 
Forschungs und Beratungsinstitut Gefahrstoffe 
International Agency for Research of Cancer  
The International Organization for Standardization 
Limit of Detection 
Limit of Quantification 
Member State 
Nomenclature statistique des activités économiques dans la Communauté 
européenne, the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European 
Community 
Not elsewhere classified 
Occupational Exposure Limit 
Occupational Safety and Health 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration  
Phase-Contrast Microscopy or Phase-Contrast Microscope 
Personal Protective Equipment 
Committee for Risk Assessment 
Risk & Policy Analysts Ltd 
Risk & Policy Analysts Ltd 
Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals Regulation 
Risk Management Measure 
Respiratory Protective Equipment 
sustainable development goals 
Scanning Electron Microscopy Energy  
Scanning Electron Microscopy Dispersive X-ray Analysis 
Small and Medium-sized Enterprise  
Transmission Electron Microscopy 
Threshold Limit Value 
Time-weighted Average 
United Kingdom 
World Health Organization  

ACM 
AM 
APF 
AWD 
BAuA 
CAD 
CDB 
CMD 
DG 
EC 
EFBWW 
EEC 
ECHA 
EODS 
ERR 
ETUI 
FIEC 
EU 
FoBiG 
IARC 
ISO 
LOD 
LOQ 
MS 
NACE 

n.e.c. 
OEL 
OSH 
OSHA 
PCM 
PPE 
RAC 
RPA 
RPA 
REACH 
RMM 
RPE 
SDG 
SEM 
SEM/EDXA 
SME 
TEM 
TLV 
TWA 
UK 
WHO 

 
 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION: 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 
chemicals1.  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/EC2.  

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 asbestos3. 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.  

1  The  EU  OSH  Strategic  Framework  on  Health  and  Safety  at  Work  2014-2020,  COM(2014)  332  final, 
6.6.2014; the Commission Communication ‘Safer and  Healthier Work for All  - Modernisation of the EU 
Occupational Safety and Health Legislation and Policy’, COM (2017) 12 final, 10.1.2017; the Commission 
Communication ‘A strong social Europe for just transitions’, COM(2020) 14 final, 14.1.2020. 
2  Since  2017,  29  substances  were  addressed  under  the  Carcinogens  and  Mutagens  Directive  2004/37/EC 
and for the same period 41 substances under Chemical Agents Directive  
3 COM(2022) 488 

1 

 
 
                                                 
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 
EU4. The indirect costs may reach as much as EUR 334 billion each year5. 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)6

.  

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  study7  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 update8 of 

4  RIVM  Report  2016-0010:  Work-related  cancer  in  the  European  Union:  Size,  impact  and  options  for 
further prevention, Jongeneel WP, Eysink PED, Theodori D, Hamberg-van Reenen HH, Verhoeven JK. 
5 Idem. 
6  Directive  2009/148/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  30  November  2009  on  the 
protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work) (OJ L 330, 16.12.2009, p. 28–
36). 
7 External Study. RPA (2021). European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs 
and  Inclusion,  Lassen,  C.,  Christens,  F.,  Vencovska,  J.,  et  al.,  Study  on  collecting  information  on 
substances with the view to analyse health, socio-economic and environmental impacts in connection with 
possible  amendments  of  Directive  98/24/EC  (Chemical  Agents)  and  Directive  2009/148/EC  (Asbestos): 
final report for asbestos, Publications Office, 2021, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/981554.  
8 SWD(2021) 148 final 

2 

 
 
                                                 
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  assessment9  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.  

2  PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1  What is the problem? 

Occupational  cancer  is  the  main  cause  of  work-related  deaths  in  the  EU10,  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, mesothelioma11 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 related12. 

9 RAC Opinion on scientific evaluation of occupational exposure limits for Asbestos. ECHA/RAC/A77-O-
0000006981-66-01/F 
10  Occupational  cancer  is,  with  a  share  of  52 %,  the  first  cause  of  work-related  deaths  in  the  European 
Union,  compared  with  circulatory  illnesses  (24 %)  and  injuries  (2 %)  and  all  other  causes  (22 %).  2017 
data, thus EU27+UK. https://visualisation.osha.europa.eu/osh-costs#!/.  
11  Mesothelioma is  a  type  of  cancer  that  develops  from  the  thin  layer  of  tissue  that  covers  many  of  the 
internal organs (known as the mesothelium). 
12 European Occupational Diseases Statistics (EODS) - Experimental statistics - Eurostat (europa.eu) 

3 

 
 
                                                 
For mesothelioma, there is no cure and patients have an average life expectancy between 
4  and  18  months  after  diagnosis13.  Asbestos  exposure  is  responsible  for  92%  of  the 
mesothelioma cases14. 

Mesothelioma alone already accounts for approximately 15% of all work-related cancer 
deaths15,  39%  of  the  new  work-related  recognised  cancer  cases  and  50%  of  asbestos 
related cancer cases16.  

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)17. Lung cancer accounts for 44% of all new recognised occupational 
cancers  with  asbestos  accounting  for  88%18  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 201619. In 2019, the estimates show a total of 71 750 deaths in 
the EU-27  from  occupational exposure to  asbestos20. 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 
exposure21.  

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)22.  Since  200523,  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 

13  Burgers  JA,  Damhuis  RA.  Prognostic  factors  in  malignant  mesothelioma.  Lung  Cancer.  2004  Aug;45 
Suppl 1:S49-54. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2004.04.012. PMID: 15261434. 
14 See footnote 12  
15 See footnote 4  
16 See footnote 12  
17 Health at a Glance: Europe 2020: State of Health in the EU Cycle  
18 WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury  
19 See Footnote 17 
20 Mesothelioma (7 510 deaths), ovarian cancer (2 032), tracheal, bronchus and lung cancer (61 035) and 
larynx cancer (1,173). RPA external study (2021) data from Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk 
Factors Study (GBD) 2019 database 
21 See footnote 7 
22 Directive 83/478/CEE du Conseil du 19 septembre 1983. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1983/478/oj 
23  The  manufacture,  placing  on  the  market  and  use  of  asbestos  was  banned  in  the  EU  by  Commission 
Directive 1999/77/EC of 26 July 1999 adapting to technical progress for the sixth time Annex I to Council 
Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the 
Member  States  relating  to  restrictions  on  the  marketing  and  use  of  certain  dangerous  substances  and 
preparations  (asbestos)  repealed  by  through  REACH  Regulation.  Regulation  (EC)  No 1907/2006.  Annex 
XVII entry 6 on asbestos fibres. OJ L 396. 30.12.2006. p. 220. 

4 

 
 
                                                 
asbestos  is  expected  to  increase  in  all  EU  countries  as  the  Renovation  Wave  Strategy 
progresses24. 

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  cancers25  alone  amounts  to  EUR  119.5 
billion26  every  year,  from  which  between  EUR  35  to  76  billion  are  costs  due  to  lung 
cancers caused by asbestos exposure27. 

The  problem  tree  below  summarises  the  main  drivers  behind  the  problem  and  the 
resulting consequences for workers, businesses, and Member States: 

External market 
driver 

Internal market 
driver 

 Renovation of old 



buildings to 
accelerate with 
Green Deal 

Exposure of workers 
to asbestos entails 
serious health risks 

Internal regulatory drivers 



The limit value for 
asbestos is out-of-date 

 Different levels of 

protection exist in Member 
States  

Asbestos  is  the  major  contributor  to  occupational 
cancer; it is the main cause of work-related deaths  

for businesses: 

for Member States: 

for workers: 

 Higher  costs  (absenteeism; 
need  for  staff  replacement, 
loss of experience) 

 Reduced staff productivity 
 Lack of level playing field 

 Higher social 
security costs 

 Forgone tax 
revenues 

 Risk of life loss  (premature 

deaths) 

 Personal health problems 
 Higher health-related costs 
 Reduced family income 

s
r
e
v
i
r
d

m
e
l
b
o
r
p

s
e
c
n
e
u
q
e
s
n
o
c

24  Renovation  Wave:  doubling  the  renovation  rate  to  cut  emissions,  boost  recovery  and  reduce  energy 
poverty. COM(2020) 662 final 
25 Reduced absenteeism, productivity losses and insurance payments 
26 EU-OSHA, The economics of OSH, 2017. Available at: https://visualisation.osha.europa.eu/osh-costs 
27 Applying percentages of lung cancer mentioned before to the costs. 

5 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
2.2  What are the problem drivers? 

2.2.1  Market 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 States28.  

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 201729. 

Asbestos  can  be  found  in  several  forms  in  buildings  all  over  the  EU30.  More  than  220 
million  building  units,  representing  85%  of  the  EU’s  building  stock,  were  built  before 
200131 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 

28  Wilk,  E.  and  Krówczyńska,  M.  2021.  Malignant  mesothelioma  and  asbestos  exposure  in  Europe: 
Evidence of spatial clustering. Geospatial Health. 16, 1 (May 2021). https://doi.org/10.4081/gh.2021.951 
29  Pawelec  (2017).  Rehabilitation  of  buildings  and  removal  of  asbestos.  Presentation  at  BUILD2LC, 
Vilnius; as reported in RPA (2021). 
30 E.g.: flat roofing tiles, large and small facade panels, ceiling, and wall panelling; heat and soundproofing, 
as  protection  against  fire  and  condensation  on  beams,  smokeproof  doors  and  gates,  in  kilns,  boilers  and 
high temperature installations, etc).  
31  A  Renovation  Wave  for  Europe  -  greening  our  buildings,  creating  jobs,  improving  lives. 
SWD/2020/550 final 

6 

 
 
 
                                                 
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).  

Figure 1 - Breakdown of residential building by construction year and EU Member State 
(2014 data)  

Source: EU Buildings Factsheets | Energy (europa.eu) 

Figure 2 - Estimated average quantity of asbestos in the residential building stock 

Source: JRC, 2022 

7 

 
 
 
 
Further  information  on  the  presence  of  asbestos  in  the  residential  building  stock  at  EU 
regional level is available in a JRC recent study32. 

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 excavation33; 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, ships34, 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  fibres35. 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/facilities36. 

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 

32  Maduta,  C.,  Kakoulaki,  G.,  Zangheri,  P.  and  Bavetta,  M.,  Towards  energy  efficient  and  asbestos-free 
dwellings  through  deep  energy  renovation,  EUR  31086  EN,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union, 
Luxembourg, 2022, ISBN 978-92-76-52961-3, doi:10.2760/00828, JRC129218. 
33  According  to  responses  from  Austria,  for  the  supporting  study’s  stakeholder  consultation,  naturally 
occurring  asbestos  in  rocks  is  an  issue  in  tunnel  excavation,  and  the  potential  for  presence  of  asbestos-
containing rocks is a part of the tender specifications for new tunnel projects. 
34 The HSA in Ireland noted, for the stakeholder consultation carried by RPA for the supporting study, that 
the difficulty with ships, especially for ships that travel around the world, is that if a ship needs parts, they 
can easily purchase parts that still contain asbestos because  they come out of countries where asbestos is 
not banned or well regulated. 
35 See footnote 7 
36 Informe Corporativo 2020, Metro Madrid. 

8 

 
 
                                                 
construction sector are men37. Although there is very few disaggregated data by gender38, 
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)39. 

More  information  concerning  uses,  activities  and  exposures  of  asbestos  is  available  in 
annex 5.  

Table 1: Summary of estimates taken forward for the assessment of options 

Exposed workforce 
(number of workers) 

Health effects caused 

4 100 000 - 7 300 000 

Lung cancer  
Mesothelioma  
Laryngeal cancer 
Ovarian cancer 

Source: External study. RPA (2021) 

Major occupational 
exposure route 

Inhalation 

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 
unclear40,41.  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 

37 Eurostat. Jobs still split along gender lines  
38 For example, PIVISTEA 2016 (Spanish Programme to follow asbestos exposed workers) data shows that 
1.5% of the registered workers currently exposed are women (or 5.5% for those who were exposed in the 
past). 
39 Occupation and mesothelioma in Sweden; Dan Med J 61/9; Surveillance-Mésothéliome  
40 Clinical relevance indicates whether the results of a study are meaningful or not for several stakeholders.  
41 See footnote 9 

9 

 
 
 
                                                 
at  work  and 
underestimation of the disease burden. 

identifying 

them  as  occupational  cancers,  which  could 

lead 

to 

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  
Laryngeal and ovarian 
cancer  

TOTAL 

336 

34 

370 

804 

80 

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  EU42.  The 
recognised  cases  are  significantly  lower  than  the  actual  number  of  deaths  due  to 
asbestos43. 

2.2.2  Regulatory 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 

42 See footnote 12  
43 The difference between the recognised and actual numbers is justified due to the difficulty to prove the 
causality of lung cancer from the occupational exposure to asbestos. 

10 

 
 
                                                 
the  responsible  authority  of  the  Member  State  is  mandatory44,  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 happening45. 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 201346.  

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  safety47  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  directives48)  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 
States49.  

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 

44  If  the  exposure  of  the  worker  is  sporadic  and  of  low  intensity  with  exposure  limit  not  exceeded,  the 
activity does not need to be notified 
45 For example in France, the number of recognised cases decreased from 5,279 cases in 2009 to 2,881 in 
2019. (L’Assurance Maladie, 2020, External study. RPA 2021). 
46 Eurostat, EU index of occupational diseases (2013=100) – experimental statistics [HSW_OCC_INA] 
47 DOC.008 21. ACSH Opinion on an EU Binding Occupational Exposure Limit Value for Asbestos under 
the Asbestos at Work Directive 2009/148/EC. Adopted on 24/11/2021 
48 SWD (2017) 10 final. 
49 The average per capita asbestos use, measured in kg per capita/year, diminished from an average of 1.7 
in  1971-2000  to  an  average  of  0.1  in  2001-2012.  Evaluation  of  the  Practical  Implementation  of  the  EU 
Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Directives in EU Member States. 

11 

 
 
                                                 
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 
202150. 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) 
European Union  
0.1 
EU countries with stricter OEL: 
Netherlands 

0.002 

Denmark 
France 

Germany 

0.003 
0.01 

0.1 

0.01(*) 

Comments 

Introduced in 2003 

asbestos 

amphibolic 

Asbestos  fibres  of  the  chrysotile  type 
and 
fibres, 
respectively,  should  not  exceed  this 
value. Introduced in 2017 
Introduced in 2022 
Measured  by  Transmission  electron 
microscopy  (TEM)  and  thus  including 
'thin asbestos fibres'. Introduced in 2015 
Workplace 
concentration 
exposure 
corresponding to the proposed tolerable 
(binding  limit  value)  cancer  risk  4:1 
000.  

exposure 
to 

Workplace 
corresponding 
preliminary  acceptable  cancer 
4:100 000. Introduced in 2008 

concentration 
proposed 
risk 

the 

(*) 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). 

2.3  How 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.  

50 RAC Opinion. See footnote 9 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
On  the  basis  of  notifications  received  by  national  authorities51,  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)52.  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).  

Table 4: Estimated number of exposed workers, expected number of cancers and 
related health costs in case no action is taken (baseline scenario), over a 40-year 
period 

No. of 
currently  
exposed 
workers 

4 100 000 – 
7 300 000 

Trend in no. of exposed 
workers 

Next 10 years: +4 % per year 
11 – 25 years: no changes 
26 – 40 years: -10 % per year 

Expected 
no. of 
cancer 
cases 

Expected 
no. of 
deaths 

884 

707 

Estimated 
health costs 
(net present 
value) 

€228 million – 
€438 million 

Source: External study. RPA (2021) 

As a result of current exposure, 884 cases of cancer53 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. 

51 According to Article 4 of Asbestos at Work Directive, the activities involving a risk of exposure to dust 
arising  from  materials  containing  asbestos  must  be  covered  by  a  notification  system  administered  by  the 
responsible authority of the Member State.  
52 See footnote 7 
53 Including mesothelioma, lung, laryngeal and ovarian cancer. 

13 

 
 
                                                 
 
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. 

3  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

3.1  Legal 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. 

14 

 
 
 
 
3.2  Subsidiarity: 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 
turnover54),  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 
sector55. 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 

54 Analytical Report - Strengthening the Internal Market for construction - November 2018.  
55  Posted_workers in the EU 

15 

 
 
                                                 
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.  

4  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? 

4.1  General 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  Union56,57.  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  Rights58,  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.  

4.2  Specific 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). 

4.3  Consistency 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 Rights59. 

REACH Regulation 

The REACH Regulation60, in force since 2007, establishes among others two distinct EU 
regulatory approaches that are restrictions and authorisations.  

56 OJ C 115, 9.5.2008, p. 114–116 
57 OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 391–407 
58 See footnote 1 
59 OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 391–407 
60 See footnote 20 

16 

 
 
                                                 
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 intentionally61. 

Together, the AWD and the REACH Regulation are relevant for workers protection from 
the risks of exposure to asbestos. 

61  Commission  Directive  1999/77/EC  of  26  July  1999  adapting  to  technical  progress  for  the  sixth  time 
Annex I to Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative 
provisions  of  the  Member  States  relating  to  restrictions  on  the  marketing  and  use  of  certain  dangerous 
substances and preparations (asbestos) repealed by REACH Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006. Annex XVII 
entry 6 on asbestos fibres. OJ L 396. 30.12.2006. P 220 

17 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
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. 

5  WHAT 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 

4 
WPC - ACSH 
The Working Party 
on Chemicals (WPC) 
discusses  the 
scientific opinion 
and various 
feasibility issues 
and with suggestion 
for the OEL value. 
This is integrated in 
a draft opinion for 
adoption by the 
Plenary of ACSH. 

5 
Impact Assessment 
(IA)
DG EMPL drafts IA 
containing policy 
options and 
associated impacts. 
IA is discussed 
within an 
Interservice 
Steering Group and 
submitted to the 
Regulatory Scrutiny 
Board  (RSB). A 
positive reply is 
required. 

2

Selection of 
chemicals for 
Scientific 
Evaluation

DG EMPL 
establishes lists of 
priorities for 
scientific evaluation 
based on inputs 
from various 
sources and 
application of 
priority criteria. 

1

Social Partners 
Consultation

The Commission is 
required under 
TFEU article 154 to 
organise a formal 
two stage 
consultation of the 
Social Partners at 
EU level 
(management and 
labour).

3

Scientific Opinion

DG EMPL mandates 
ECHA for RAC the 
scientific committee 
to deliver an 
Opinion. This 
includes the dose 
response 
relationship or 
exposure-risk-
relationships (ERR) 
for non-threshold 
carcinogens, or a 
practical threshold 
when possible. 
ECHA scientific 
reports are subject 
to external 
consultation. 

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. 

18 

 
 
 
 
Table 5: Exposure-risk relationship 

Air  concentration  of  asbestos  (fibres/cm3  ) 
 as measured by PCM62  

Excess life-time cancer risk (cases 
per 100 000 exposed workers) 

0.001 
0.002 
0.005 
0.01 
0.02 
0.05 
0.1 

1.2 
2.5 
6.2 
12 
25 
62 
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). 

5.1  Baseline 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  initiatives63,  the  development  of  new 
technologies64 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.  

62  The  exposure-risk  relationship  is  based  on  fibre  measurements  according  to  the  Phase  Contrast 
Microscopy (PCM) method of WHO (1997). 
63 Mainly the development of guidelines for good practice for working with asbestos. 
64  Remote-controlled  robots  are  already  used  for  removal  of  materials  from  surfaces,  confined  spaces, 
ceilings  and  building  walls.  Further  projects  to  robotise  the  removal  of  asbestos  in  the  future  (e.g., 
Bots2ReC)  exist,  although  it  is  difficult  to  foresee,  at  this  stage,  what  would  be  their  uptake  and  if 
developments will allow for the use in small and narrow spaces. It is also important to note that the costs of 
such solutions might mean that only large companies (1% of the companies working with asbestos) would 
be able to envisage this as an option. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 6: Baseline scenario over 40 years 

Types of cancer caused 

No. of exposed workers 
Change in future exposure level 
Change in future no. of exposed workers 

Lung cancer 
Mesothelioma 
Laryngeal cancer 
Ovarian cancer 
4 100 000 - 7 300 000 * 
No changes 
Next 10 years: +4% per year 
11 – 25 years: no changes 
26 – 40 years: -10% per year 

370 (new cases in 2021) 

Current  disease  burden  (CDB)  –  for 
current types of exposure situations 
Future disease burden (FDB) - for current 
types of exposure situations  
Expected no. of deaths FBD cancer 
Monetary value FDB cancer 
Monetary value FDB other adverse health 
effects 
Based on external study: RPA (2021) 
*Workforce turns over at 5% p.a. 
* More workers may be exposed by passive exposure65 and exposure from naturally occurring 
asbestos at concentrations close to 0.001 fibres/cm3 or lower 

804 mesothelioma and lung cancers 
80 laryngeal and ovarian cancers 
707 
€228 million – €438 million 

Not quantified 

5.2  Options discarded at an early stage 

5.2.1  Guidance 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 
stakeholders66. 

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.  

5.2.2  Revision 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 

65 Passive exposure may take place in a large number of sectors as workers in any kind of building where 
asbestos is present may be exposed to low levels of asbestos. No data are available on which are the main 
sectors  but  the  following  sectors  could  be  included  among  others:  accommodation  and  food  service 
activities,  financial  and  insurance  activities,  administrative  and  support  service  activities,  public 
administration and defence, education. 
66 See for example WKÖ reply to the initiative’s call for evidence. 

20 

 
 
 
                                                 
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. 

5.2.3  Adapted 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.  

The impacts for SMEs are discussed further down in this report and it will be taken into 
account  for  the  decision  of  the  measures  to  be  adopted.  More  information  on  SMEs  is 
given in annex 6. 

5.3  Policy 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 ECHA67, 
the  opinion  from  the  ACSH68,  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. 

67 See footnote 38 and section 4 in annex 1. 
68 DOC.008 21. ACSH Opinion on an EU Binding Occupational Exposure Limit Value for Asbestos under 
the Asbestos at Work Directive 2009/148/EC. Adopted on 24/11/2021 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 7: Options matrix of OELs 

OEL 
Fibres/cm3 

Comments 

Option 1:  
Baseline scenario  

Option 2 

Option 3 

Option 4 

0.1 

0.01 

0.002 

0.001 

Current EU OEL 

Proposed by ACSH Employers and 
Governments interest groups  

Current strictest national OEL in EU  

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 background69 levels. Asbestos is present in many settings 
and  exposure  can  also  take  place  through  naturally  occurring  asbestos  present  in  the 
environment70.  Ambient  asbestos  concentrations  in  rural  and  urban  areas  in  the  EU  are 
therefore  expected  to  be  higher  than  0  f/cm³71.  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.  

69 The concentration of a substance in an environmental medium (air, water, or soil) that occurs naturally or 
is not the result of human activities. EEA glossary 
70 Refer to point 5.2.1 General population of the ECHA-RAC opinion Annex 1. 
71 i.e, in France the level of dust (asbestos) accumulation measured inside the buildings must not exceed the 
regulatory threshold of 5 f/l (0.005 f/cm3). (https://www.anses.fr/en/content/asbestos) 

22 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
6  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? 

6.1  Analytical 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 appropriate72. 

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  earnings73)  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  equipment74  and  the  staff  costs  of  operating  vacuum 

72  However,  the  workers  interest  group  of  the  ACSH  criticised  in  the  ACSH  opinion  the  exposure  risk 
relationship  derived  by  ECHA  because  according  to  them  it  does  not  fit  with  the  reality  when  asbestos 
victims are counted (i.e. number of asbestos victims should be higher). 
73 This is not the case where lost earnings are already taken into account in the willingness to pay estimate 
in published literature. 
74 Estimates rely notably on the prices and/or replacement assumptions used in  Hamikian et al (2015) and 
Zeynep et al (2008), as well as discussion with stakeholders during the preparation of the supporting study. 

23 

 
 
                                                 
cleaning and dust suppression equipment75. 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.  

6.2 

Impacts of the policy options  

6.2.1  Social impacts 

6.2.1.1  Health 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 

No avoided cases in 
relation to the 
existing situation 
No benefits in 
relation to the 
existing situation 
No benefits in 
relation to the 
existing situation 

Option 2 
0.01 
fibre/cm3 

Option 3 
0.002 
fibre/cm3 

Option 4 
0.001 
fibre/cm3 

663 

323 

166 

831 

405 

208 

858 

418 

215 

Avoided cases 

Benefits  
(€ 
million)  

WTP  
(Method 1) 

DALYs 
(Method 2). 

Source: External study. RPA (2021) 

As presented in Table 8, important benefits can be expected under all options.  

75 It is assumed that no new vacuum cleaning and dust suppression equipment will be needed but that staff 
will spend more time using it. 

24 

 
 
                                                 
 
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  RMMs76  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. 

6.2.1.2  Impacts 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  predicted77.  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 

76 E.g., more time spent using vacuum cleaners or application of various other dust suppression techniques 
in the construction and building sector 
77 See footnote 7 

25 

 
 
                                                 
recruit and retain staff, reducing the cost of recruitment and increasing the productivity of 
workers. 

6.2.2  Economic impacts 

6.2.2.1  Impact 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 contracts78 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 quantified79.  

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  costs80.  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)  

Additional RMMs 

Option 2 
0.01 
fibre/cm3 
12 492 

Option 3 
0.002 
fibre/cm3 
52 108 

Health surveillance 

7 290 

14 570 

Notification  

Low estimate 

High estimate 

650 

2 180 

1 310 

4 350 

Option 4 
0.001 
fibre/cm3 
58 282 

21 860 

2 610 

6 530 

78  This  is  the  case,  for  example,  when  lowering  the  OEL  might  not  involve  changes  to  the  risk 
categorisation system and therefore does not result in changes in the requirements concerning notification. 
79  In  the  case  of  notification  costs,  two  estimations  are  done,  a  low  estimate  (based  on  the  most  recent 
experience at Member State level) where it has been assumed that increase in the number of contracts that 
would  need  to  be  notified  is  10%  for  Option  2,  20%  for  Option  3  and  40%  for  Option  4,  and  a  high 
estimate (presented in the external study) where the increase in the number of contracts that would need to 
be notified is 1/3 (33%) for Option 2, 2/3 (66%) for Option 3 and 100% for Option 4. In the case of health 
surveillance,  it  has  been  assumed  that  additional  0.5  million  per  year  should  be  subject  to  health 
surveillance  for  Option  2,  1  million  additional  workers  for  Option  3  and  up  to  5  million  workers  under 
Option 4. 
80 Costs of planning, sampling, analysis and reporting.  

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
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’81) 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 
(construction82).  In  that  sector,  only  for  small  companies  under  the  NACE  ‘Other 

81 The ‘cost/turnover ratio’ is the compliance costs borne by a company divided by its turnover. The closer 
this ratio is to zero, the more the company will be able to meet the costs.  
82 99% of the over 1.55 million companies that are estimated to be involved in work with asbestos belong 
to the construction sector. 

27 

 
 
                                                 
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  283.  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).  

6.2.2.2  Impact 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 customers84. 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 

83  DK  changed  its  OEL  (in  January  2022)  after  the  end  of  the  supporting  study.  The  costs  and  benefits 
estimated for option 2 do not take the national OEL change into account. Therefore, both costs and benefits 
are slightly overestimated for that option.  
84 International competition is very limited as, with the exception of asbestos containing articles that could 
be sent outside the EU, asbestos removal takes place in situ.  

28 

 
 
                                                 
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. 

6.2.2.3  Indirect 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 

29 

 
 
Switzerland  (0.01  fibres/cm3)  and  Japan  (0.03+  and  0.003++  fibres/cm3)85  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). 

6.2.2.4  Impact 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  notifications86.  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 

85 Except chrysotile. For chrysotile the OEL is 0.15+ and 0.015++ 
 + Reference value corresponding to an individual excess lifetime risk of cancer of 1 in 1 000.  
++ Reference value corresponding to an individual excess lifetime risk of cancer of 1 in 10 000.  
86 With the lowering of the OEL, certain activities that could benefit from the art 3(3) notification waiver 
(i.e., activities where the worker exposure is sporadic and of low intensity and  the OEL is not exceeded) 
might be obliged to notify to the national authorities under the new OEL. 

30 

 
 
                                                 
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 
€3 400 000 

Option 3 
0.002 fibre/cm3 
€4 300 000 

Option 4 
0.001 fibre/cm3 
€4 500 000 

€750 000* 
€750 000* 

€1 300 000 
€1 300 000 

€1 350 000 
€1 350 000 

Benefits 
Costs: 
Transposition 
Guidelines 
Enforcement, 
monitoring and 
adjudication costs: 

Low estimate 
High estimate 

€ 420 000 000 
€ 1 400 000 000 

€ 840 000 000 
€2 800 000 000 

€ 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.  

6.2.3  Environmental 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  buildings87.  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.  

87 Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) and the Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC) contain provisions to 
address  the  environmentally  sound  management  of  asbestos  waste  and  EU  Construction  and  Demolition 
Waste Management Protocol and Guidelines for the waste audits to assist operators in the safe removal and 
management of asbestos published by Commission 

31 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.2.3.1  Climate Change impacts 

Asbestos has the property of absorbing carbon dioxide molecules dissolved in rainwater 
or floating through the air88, 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.  

6.2.4 

Impacts 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.  

6.2.5  Contribution 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). 

6.2.6 

Impacts 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.  

6.2.7  Administrative 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 

88  https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/10/06/1009374/asbestos-could-be-a-powerful-weapon-against-
climate-change-you-read-that-right/ 

32 

 
 
                                                 
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 

33 

 
 
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 

OEL options (fibres/cm3) 

affected 

0.01  

0.002  

0.001  

Economic impacts 
Direct costs – Compliance, monitoring and administrative costs  
Risk  management  measures 
and 
costs 
discontinuation 
(one-off and recurrent) 
Health surveillance 
Notification: 

Companies  € 12 492 million  € 52 108 million  € 58 282 million 

Companies  € 7 290 million  € 14 570 million  € 21 860 million 

€ 2 610 million  
€ 1 310 million 
€ 650 million 
€ 2 180 million 
€ 6 530 million 
€ 4 350 million 
€ 530 million  € 1 100 million  € 2 000 million 

€ 110 million 

€ 560 million 

€ 640 million 

€ 15 million 

€ 30 million 

€ 60 million 

€ 21 087 million 
€ 22 617 million 
< € 15 000 

€ 69 678 million 
€ 72 718million 
< € 46 000 

€ 85 452 million 
€ 89 372 million 
< € 57 000 

€ 0.75 million 

€ 1.3 million 

€ 1.4 million 

€ 0.75 million 

€ 1.3 million 

€ 1.4 million 

€ 420 million 
€ 1 400 million 

€ 840 million 
€ 2 800 million 

€ 1 680 million 
€ 4 200 million 

Low estimate 
High estimate 
Training  costs  (on  the  correct 
application of new RMM). 
Monitoring 
analysis) 
Direct  costs  -  administrative 
burdens (linked to monitoring) 
Total Direct Costs 

(sampling 

and 

Low estimate 
High estimate 

Companies 

Companies 

Companies 

Companies 

Companies 

Total Direct costs  
(average per company) 
Direct costs - enforcement costs 
Transposition costs 

Companies 

Public 
authorities 
Public 
authorities 

Public 
authorities 

Costs of changing guidelines 

Enforcement, 
adjudication costs 

monitoring, 

Low estimate 
High estimate 

Direct benefits 
Savings in relation to e.g. sick 
leaves, staff replacement 
Savings in terms of healthcare 
or lost taxes 
Other economic aspects 
Single market: competition 

Companies 

€1.7 million 

€2.0 million 

€2.1 million 

€3.4 million 

€4.3 million 

€4.5 million 

No closures 

No closures 

No closures 

Public 
authorities 

No. of 
company 
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 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Impact 

Stakeholders 

OEL options (fibres/cm3) 

affected 

0.01  

0.002  

0.001  

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 
Specific MSs/regions 

Companies 
MSs that 
would have to 
change OELs 

All MS except 
France and the 
Netherlands 

Limited negative impact 
All MS except 
the 
Netherlands 

All MS 

Social impacts  
Benefits 

Reduced cases of cancers  Workers & 

663 

830 

860 

Savings  of  ill  health,  incl. 
intangible  costs  (M2 
to 
M1)  
Employment 

Environmental impacts 

families 
Workers & 
families 

€166 – 323 
million 

€208 – 405 
million 

€215 – 418 
million 

Jobs lost  No  significant  net  loss  of  employment  is  being 

predicted at the OEL option of 0.01 fibres/cm3.  

Environmental releases 
Notes: All costs/benefits are incremental to the baseline (Present Values over 40 years).. 

Environment  No impact/limited positive impact 

7  HOW 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.  

35 

 
 
  
 
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  environments89  (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 

89 Annex 1 to RAC opinion. See footnote 38.  

36 

 
 
                                                 
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  

Option 1: 

Option 2: 

Option 3: 

Option 4: 

Baseline 

0.01 fibres/cm3 

0.002 fibres/cm3 

0.001 fibres/cm3 

0 

0 

0 

++ 

- 

+ 

++ 

- - 

+ 

+ 

- - - 

+ 

Criteria 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

8  PREFERRED 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. 

37 

 
 
 
8.1  Overall impact of the preferred option 

8.1.1 

Impact 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. 

8.1.2 

Impact 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. 

8.1.3 

Impact 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.  

38 

 
 
Therefore, SMEs specificities, their limitations and particular challenges have been duly 
taken into account in the overall analysis presented in section 6.  

8.1.4 

Impact 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. 

8.2  Subsidiarity, 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 
from 
stakeholders 
employers'  associations,  and  representatives  from  governments),  which  helps  to  ensure 
that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality are well respected.  

from  workers’  associations, 

(representatives 

representatives 

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. 

39 

 
 
 
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 average90. 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. 

9  HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

9.1  Monitoring 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 

To  enhance 
the 
effectiveness 
the 
of 

The  number 
of 
occupational 

The  data sources  for the monitoring  of  this 
indicator are:  

-  data 

that  could  be  collected  under 

90 The cost per year per company was calculated on the basis of the total costs per company over 40 years, 
as  shown  in  table  9.  Taking  into  account  the  part  of  these  costs  which  would  be  dedicated  to  capital 
expenses under option 2 (approximatively 13%), companies would pay €2276.25 during the first year, then 
€326.25 for the following 39 years. 

40 

 
 
                                                 
occupational 
related cancer cases 
in the EU 

diseases  and 
occupational 
related 
cancer  cases 
in the EU 

occupational 
exposure 
limit  value 
the 
under 
by 
AWD 
updating 
it 
on  the  basis 
of  scientific 
expertise 

related 

The  reduction  of 
costs 
to 
occupational 
cancer 
for 
economic operators 
social 
for 
and 
security  systems  in 
the EU 

To  enhance 
the 
effectiveness 
of 
the 
occupational 
exposure 
limit  value 
the 
under 
by 
AWD 
updating 
it 
on  the  basis 
of  scientific 
expertise 

costs 
The 
related 
to 
occupational 
cancer 
for 
economic 
operators 
(e.g.  loss  of 
productivity) 
and 
social 
security 
systems 
the EU. 

in 

European Occupational Diseases Statistics 
-  Experimental  statistics  of 
(EODS) 
Eurostat,  as  well  as  on  other  non-cancer 
work-related 
and 
illnesses  in  accordance  with  Regulation 
(EC) No 1338/200891.  

problems 

health 

to 

identified 

-  data  notified  by  employers 

the 
competent national authorities on cases of 
in  accordance  with 
cancer 
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.   

implementation  of 

-  data  submitted  by  Member  States  in  the 
national implementation reports according 
to  Art.  22  of  Directive  2009/148/EC  on 
the 
the  Directive, 
submitted  in  accordance  with  Art.  17a  of 
Directive 
next 
evaluation  will  cover  the  period  from 
2018-2022. 

89/391/EEC. 

The 

adoption  of 

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 
revision.  The 
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). 

the 

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. 

91 Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008 on Community statistics on public health and health and safety at work, 
OJ L 354/70, 31.12.2008 

41 

 
 
 
                                                 
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  collection92  and  Workers' 
exposure survey on cancer risk factors to be implemented by EU-OSHA93. 

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 
substances94. 

9.2  Evaluation 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.  

92 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/experimental-statistics/european-occupational-diseases-statistics 
93 https://osha.europa.eu/en/facts-and-figures/workers-exposure-survey-cancer-risk-factors-europe 
94 The  campaign pursued several objectives, including raising awareness of the importance of preventing 
risks from dangerous substances, promoting risk assessment, heightening awareness of risks to exposure to 
carcinogens at work or increasing knowledge of the legislative framework. It was carried out in 2018-2019. 

42 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
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 
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. 
the  Risk 
It  should  explain 
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. 

the  content  of 

Corresponding changes to the draft IAR 
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 

43 

The  scope  of 
the 
effectiveness of the asbestos occupational exposure 
limit value, is more clearly indicated in section 1. 

initiative,  enhancing 

the 

A  dedicated  point  (5.2.2  -  Revision  of  other 

 
 
 
particular  by  the  European  Parliament,  it  should 
explain  why  it  discards  other  measures  that 
would fall within the scope of the Directive. 

provisions  in  the  Directive)  was  included  with 
further  explanation  on  other  measures  discarded 
that would fall within the scope of the Directive. 

lead 

limit  will 

Given  that  legal  basis  provides  only  for  the 
setting of  minimum  harmonisation  measures,  the 
report  should  better  explain  how  the  revision  of 
to  greater 
the  exposure 
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. 

According  to  RAC-ECHA  scientific  opinion, 
asbestos  does  not  have  a  safe  exposure  level, 
which  means  that  any  exposure  to  asbestos  may 
eventually  cause  an  asbestos-related  disease.  In 
designing  options  the  report  should  be  clear 
upfront  that  none  of  the  proposed  options  can 
prevent  all  possible  damages, 
fully 
addressing  the  problem  of  workers’  exposure  to 
asbestos,  and  explain  why  setting  a  zero 
fibres/cm3 OEL would not be feasible. 

thus 

and 

how 

stakeholders’ 

The  report  should  set  out  convincingly  that  the 
evidence it  uses throughout is the best available. 
It should be clear how the literature and non-EU 
evidence  was  complemented  by  stakeholders’ 
views 
alternative 
modelling assumptions were taken into account. 
Given  the  limitations  of  the  evidence  base  and 
stakeholders’ feedback, the report should explain 
better the uncertainties of the impact analysis. In 
particular, it should account  for the uncertainties 
of  the  key  assumptions  that  drive  the  cost  and 
benefit  estimates  by  undertaking  the  sensitivity 
analysis. It should explain  how the estimates are 
sensitive to alternative modelling assumptions 
The analysis of the health impacts of the options 
should take into account that  the  most ambitious 
option (OEL of 0.001 fibres/cm3) faces technical 
measurement  challenges  in  dusty  environments, 
such as construction sites. 

The  legal  basis  information  on  point  3.1  was 
complemented to better explain that the AWD lays 
down  minimum  requirements,  therefore,  Member 
States  can  introduce  more  stringent  protective 
measures,  including  a  lower  limit  value.  The 
revised  section  also  explains  that  when  Member 
States  diverge  from  the  EU  minimum  level  of 
health  and  safety  at  work  protection,  this  has  a 
positive impact on the effectiveness of the AWD, as 
this  divergence  translates  into  a  higher  level  of 
protection for their workforce, which is the general 
objective of the Directive. 

Point  3.2  on  subsidiarity  was  further  developed  to 
better explain that the revision of the exposure limit 
value  under  the  AWD  at  the  EU  level  will  not 
the  differences  between 
completely  eliminate 
Member  States  but  will 
to  a  greater 
harmonisation of limit values across Europe, as the 
lower  the  EU  OEL,  the  lower  the  scope  for 
divergences.  Information  on  the  experience  since 
introduction of current OEL was also referred to. 

lead 

Section  5  was  further  developed.  It  now  includes 
information  on  the  process  leading  to  an  OEL 
that  any 
revision.  The  revised 
exposure  to  asbestos  may  eventually  cause  an 
asbestos-related disease, and further information on 
the scientific assessment were included, such as the 
exposure-risk relationship. 

text  clarifies 

Under  point  5.3  information  was  added  to  make  it 
clear  that  there  is  no  OEL  value  below  which 
workers  would  not  be  at  risk  when  exposed  to 
asbestos.  In  addition,  information  was  further 
developed  to  better  explain  the  choice  of  OEL 
options  and  why  a  zero  fibres/cm3  OEL  is  not 
feasible. 

information  on  section  1,  was 

further 
The 
complemented  to  evidence  the  constraints  with 
availability  of  data.    Stakeholder’s  views  were 
further discussed through the document, namely on 
section 2, section 5 and section 6. 

The  uncertainty  of  the  estimates  was  further 
explained  in  section  6.1  and  section  6.2.2  of  the 
report.  

Moreover, an additional sensitivity analysis section 
was added to annex 4 (analytical methods). 

It was better explained in section 5 that an OEL at 
0.01  fibres/cm3  or  lower  will  require  a  change  in 
the measurement method.  

In  section  7  it  is  referred  that  the  measurement 
methods  needed  to  monitor  compliance  with  the 

44 

 
 
The report should add a subsection on the ‘one in, 
one  out’  approach  and  be  clear  on  the  costs  in 
scope  of  that  approach.  The  administrative  costs 
should be presented with sufficient granularity 

The  comparison  of  options  should  better  justify 
the  scores  for  effectiveness,  efficiency  and 
coherence.  The  effectiveness  score  should  be 
closely  linked  to  the  health  impacts  of  3  the 
options. When costs exceed benefits many times, 
an  option  cannot  be  ranked  as  being  equally 
efficient  as  the  baseline.  The  coherence  analysis 
should  explicitly  analyse  the  coherence  with  the 
objectives of the Climate Law. 

The preferred option includes a set of transitional 
periods based on stakeholders’ feedback but with 
no  further  analysis.  It  should  include  transition 
periods  in  the  options’  design  and  analyse  their 
impacts,  including  cost  and  benefit  implications, 
for  all  options.  At  minimum,  it  should  provide 
such analysis for the preferred option. 
Given the long latency for benefits to materialise 
and 
the  discussion  on 
proportionality should be more detailed, balanced 
and  critical.  Impacts  on  particularly  affected 
SMEs  should  be  better  documented.  The  Board 
notes  the  estimated  costs  and  benefits  of  the 
preferred  option(s) 
as 
in 
summarised in the attached quantification tables. 

the  high  net  costs, 

initiative, 

this 

different OELs options has a direct influence in the 
effectiveness.  It  clarifies  information  concerning 
compliance for the assessed options.  

A  dedicated  section  on  the  ‘one  in,  one  out’ 
approach  was  included  (6.2.7.1)  and  explanatory 
information on the costs in the scope were given. 

The administrative costs presentation was revised in 
order to provide a greater degree of granularity.  

The information on section 7 was further developed 
the 
to  better  explain 
measurement  methods  to  the  effectiveness  of  the 
options. 

the  contribution  of 

The 
information 
strengthened  and 
comparison of options table reviewed.  

efficiency  was 
scores  given 

on 
the 

in 

also 
the 

The  coherence  analysis  was  strengthened  with 
analysis  of 
the  European  Green  Deal  and 
Renovation wave influence. 

Section  8  of  the  report  was  reviewed  to  better 
explain  that,  as  it  is  possible  to  measure  an  OEL 
equal  to  0.01  f/cm3  (preferred  option)  with  the 
actual  measurement  method,  PCM,  no  transition 
period is needed for implementation of the retained 
OEL. 

The  analysis  of  proportionality  in  section  8  has 
been further improved, including by explaining that 
companies already have the obligation to reduce to 
a minimum workers’ exposure to asbestos and that 
the OEL provides a reference not to exceed but it is 
not a brand-new obligation. 

4.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

Risk Assessment Committee’s Opinions 

The assessment of health effects of the carcinogens subject to this proposal is based on 
the relevant scientific expertise from ECHA’s Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC). 

RAC  prepares  the  opinions  of  the  European  Chemicals  Agency  (ECHA)  related  to  the 
risks of substances to human health and the environment. RAC examines among others 
the proposals for harmonised classification and labelling, evaluates whether the proposed 
restriction on manufacture, placing on the market or use of a substance is appropriate in 
reducing the risk to human health and the environment, and assesses the applications for 
authorisation of chemicals. Moreover, opinions from RAC also support Union regulatory 

45 

 
 
 
 
activity in the field of occupational safety and health. More information about what this 
committee does can be found on the website of ECHA95. 

RAC  develops  high  quality  comparative  analytical  knowledge  and  ensures  that 
Commission proposals, decisions and policy relating to the protection of workers’ health 
and safety are based on sound scientific evidence. Based on a Service  Level Agreement 
(SLA)  signed  by  DG  EMPL  and  ECHA,  this  Committee  assists  the  Commission 
delivering scientific evaluations, upon request, on the toxicological profiles of each of the 
selected  priority  chemical  substances  in  relation  to  their  adverse  health  effects  on 
workers.  These  scientific  evaluations  shall,  where  appropriate,  include  proposals  for 
Occupational Exposure Limit values (OELs), biological limit values/biological guidance 
values  and/or  notations.  Based  on  such  opinions,  the  Commission  will  propose 
occupational exposure limits for the protection of workers from chemical risks, to be set 
at Union level pursuant to Council Directive 98/24/EC, Council Directive 148/2009/EC 
and Directive 2004/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.  

Members of RAC are highly qualified, specialized, independent experts selected on the 
basis  of  objective  criteria.  They  provide  the  Commission  with  Recommendations  and 
Opinions that are helpful for the development of EU policy on workers protection.  

For the purpose of this  initiative, the Commission services have used the  RAC opinion 
on an updated risk assessment for asbestos which is summarised in the following table. 
The opinion proposes an exposure-risk relationship expressing the excess risk for cancer 
(lung  cancer  and  mesothelioma)  mortality  related  to  different  levels  of  exposure.  The 
relationship between the different concentration values and the risk for developing cancer 
(see  the  below  table),  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 for 
125 out of 100 000 exposed workers could develop lung cancer or mesothelioma. 

95 https://echa.europa.eu/about-us/who-we-are/committee-for-risk-assessment 

46 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Exposure/risk relationship derived on the RAC opinion 

concentration  of 

Air 
(fibres/cm3) 
 based  on  fibre  measurements  according  to  the  Phase  Contrast  Microscopy 
method  of  WHO  (1997)  and  combined  information  from  study  populations 
exposed to different asbestos fibre types  

asbestos 

0.001 

0.002 

0.005 

0.01 

0.02 

0.05 

0.1 

Excess  life-time  cancer  risk 
(cases per 100 000 exposed) 

1.2 

2.5 

6.2 

12 

25 

62 

125 

Studies performed by external consultants 

The Commission launched a call for tender on 30 April 2020 an open call for tender96 in 
order  to  collect  information  on  substances  with  the  view  to  analyse  health,  socio-
economic  and  environmental  impacts  in  connection  with  possible  amendments  of 
Directive 98/24/EC (Chemical Agents) and Directive 2009/148/EC (Asbestos).  

The  contract  started  on  28  October  2020  and  lasted  10  months.  The  outcome  of  this 
study97 provides the main basis for this Impact Assessment Report and is summarised in 
the relevant sections of this document. 

96 Call for Tender documents available at: https://etendering.ted.europa.eu/cft/cft-display.html?cftId=3559 
97 European Commission, Directorate-General  for Employment,  Social  Affairs and Inclusion, Lassen,  C., 
Christens, F., Vencovska, J., et al., Study on collecting information on substances with the view to analyse 
health,  socio-economic  and  environmental  impacts  in  connection  with  possible  amendments  of  Directive 
98/24/EC (Chemical Agents) and Directive 2009/148/EC (Asbestos): final report for asbestos, Publications 
Office, 2021, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/981554 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation 

The following consultation activities have been performed :  

1.  Social Partners Consultation: as required by the TFEU Article 154, a formal two-
stage consultation of the social partners at EU level is required prior to submitting 
proposals  in  the  social  policy  field.  Such  a  two-stage  consultation  has  been 
performed  in  2020  and  2021.  The  first  phase  of  social  partners’  consultation 
closed on 11 February 2021 with a confirmation of the support for the revision of 
the  current  occupational  exposure  limit  value.  The  second  phase  consultation 
focused on the  envisaged  content of possible proposals closed on  30 September 
2021. More information about these two-stage consultation is provided below in 
this annex 2. 

2.  Tripartite consultation (ACSH): the tripartite Advisory Committee on Safety and 
Health (ACSH), composed of three full members per Member State, representing 
national  governments,  workers'  and  employers'  organisations,  is  consulted  on 
regular basis. It gives, taking into account the input of the RAC as well as socio-
economic  and  feasibility  factors,  opinions  which  are  used  to  prepare  the 
Commission's  proposal.  More  information  about  this  tripartite  consultation  is 
provided below in this annex.  

3.  Consultation  of  other  stakeholders  (e.g.,  industry  of  employees  associations 
specifically concerned): These consultations have been carried out in the context 
of  the  external  study  in  order  to  collect  detailed  information  on  the  potential 
impacts  of  establishing  or  revising  OELs  under  the  CAD  and  AWD  that  is  not 
available in published literature and internet searches.  

In line with the previous amendments of the OSH Directives (namely CMD), no public 
consultation on this initiative has been launched for the following reasons: 

  A broad consultation of various stakeholders, social partners and Member States’ 

competent authorities has been carried out in view of this initiative.  

  This initiative concerns a very technical topic for which the general public does 
not  have  sufficient  expertise.  For  that  reason,  a  more  targeted  consultation  was 
considered as a more proportionate approach. 
In  the  context  of  the  scientific  opinions  carried  out  by  RAC,  stakeholders  were 
allowed to express their views and concerns in the early phases of developing the 
scientific report on occupational exposure limit for asbestos. 

 

A call for evidence was published on 22 February 2022 with deadline of 22 March. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
1.  SOCIAL PARTNERS CONSULTATION  

1.1. 

Results of the first phase of the Social Partners consultation.  

The first phase of Social Partners consultation closed on 11 February 2021. 

The Commission consulted the Social Partners on the approach regarding the revision of 
a limit value for asbestos under the Asbestos at Work Directive, and the establishment or 
revision  of  binding  occupational  exposure  limit  values  for  lead  and  its  compounds  and 
diisocyanates under the Chemical Agents Directive. 

Workers' organisations  

Two trade unions  replied to  the consultation: the European Trade Union Confederation 
(ETUC)  and  the  European  Federation  of  Building  and  Woodworkers  (EFBWW).  They 
acknowledged the importance of the revision of the current occupational exposure limit 
value  (OEL)  and  requested  a  broader  scope  of  action  under  the  Asbestos  at  Work 
Directive and beyond. 

ETUC and EFBWW proposed that the Directive is updated further than the current OEL. 
Among other things, they suggested widening the scope to include an updated list of all 
known  forms  of  fibres  with  similar  harmful  effects  on  human  health,  to  cancel  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. 
Other  suggestions  were  also  made  on  different  aspects98,  most  of  which  are  already 
covered by the Directive. 

Apart from the aspects related to the revision of the Asbestos at Work Directive, ETUC 
and EFBWW mirror the proposals of the European Parliament resolution, which go far 
beyond the scope of the occupational health and safety policy area. 

In particular, they asked to create a new European legal framework for national asbestos 
removal  plans,  which  should  include  a  model  with  minimum  standards  for  digital 
asbestos  registries,  a  proposal  for  mandatory  screening  before  selling  or  renting  out  a 
building and establish asbestos certificates for buildings built before 2005, and financial 
support to building owners for the save removal of asbestos. Furthermore, they called on 
the  Commission  to  propose  a  targeted  amendment  to  Article  7  of  Directive  2010/31/ 
EU99  on  the  energy  performance  of  buildings  in  the  context  of  the  Renovation  Wave 
Strategy100. 

98 For example, provision of technical minimum requirements to lower the concentration of asbestos fibres; 
representative sampling of the personal exposure of the worker and more.  
99  Directive  2010/31/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  19 May  2010  on  the  energy 
performance of buildings. OJ L 153, 18.6.2010, p. 13–35 
100 COM(2020) 662 final 

49 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
In  addition,  they  expressed  the  need  for  a  legislative  proposal  for  robust  European 
minimum  standards  for  the  recognition  and  adequate  compensation  for  victims  of 
asbestos  related  occupational  diseases,  although  this  is  Member  States’  competence. 
They also asked for the update of Recommendation of 19 September 2003 concerning the 
European  schedule  of  occupational  diseases,  to  include  all  known  asbestos  related 
diseases 101. 

Both trade unions also suggested that in the framework of the new EU Circular Economy 
Action  Plan102,  the  registration  of  asbestos  in  existing  buildings  and  infrastructures 
should be a first step to eliminate asbestos from the circular economy 

Furthermore, EFBWW expressed views that women workers are vastly underrepresented 
in research into the health risks that are associated with workplace exposure to asbestos 
and  considered  necessary  that  the  Commission  includes  a  specific  focus  on  the  gender 
differences  in  this  and  its  future  initiatives  to  improve  workers'  protection  from  risks 
related to asbestos. 

The workers do not want to enter into negotiations under Article 155 TFEU concerning 
the revision of the Asbestos at  Work Directive. However, they highlight the possibility 
for  discussing  issues  together  with  employers  and  seeking  converging  positions  on 
related matters. 

Employers' organisations 

Three  employers'  organisations  replied  to  the  first  phase  consultation:  BusinessEurope, 
SMEunited (European Association of Crafts and SMEs) and the European Construction 
Industry Federation (FIEC).  

They supported the objective to effectively protect workers from exposure to hazardous 
chemicals, including by setting OELs at EU level, where appropriate. They consider this 
is  in  the  interest  of  workers  and  businesses  and  contributes  to  a  level  playing  field. 
However,  they  also  raised  some  concerns  about  the  approach  taken  when  setting  such 
values. 

The  employers'  organisations  recognised  that  asbestos  is  a  serious  threat  for  workers, 
which needs to be addressed. BusinessEurope and SMEunited stressed that any revision 
of  an  OEL  must  be  based  on  sound  scientific  evidence  and  a  thorough  assessment  of 
technical  and  economic  feasibility  and  socio-economic  impact,  for  which  the  role  of 
ACSH is central. 

BusinessEurope  further  emphasised  that  any  review  should  be  restricted  to  a  possible 
amendment of the limit values and not touch any other provisions in the directives. They 
are also of view that the impact assessment scenarios already developed, are based on the 

101 OJ L 238, 25.9.2003, p. 28–34 
102  European  Parliament  resolution  of  10  February  2021  on  the  New  Circular  Economy  Action  Plan 
(2020/2077(INI)) 

50 

 
 
                                                 
limit  value  in  one  Member  State,  which  is  based  on  a  different  analytical  model  than 
those  used  in  other  Member  States.  They  refer  to  the  need  of  taking  this  into  account 
when going forward since analytical models have an impact on the limit values set. 

BusinessEurope  mentioned  the  need  to  take  into  account  the  widely  used  protective 
measures. In addition, they referred to the additional costs and particular challenges for 
SMEs, a change of measurement method, as a result of a lower limit value would imply, 
i.e., additional analysis at workplaces, new requirements for PPE. 

FIEC emphasised that the current EU legal framework is sufficient and does not support 
stricter occupational exposure limit values for the substances under consideration. They 
mentioned  as  well,  that  the  European  Commission’s  action  should  focus  more  on 
preventive measures to eliminate or minimise risks, rather than setting new binding limit 
values. 

SMEunited underlined that before further tighten limits they would prefer a harmonised 
implementation  of  the  existing  OEL  as  for  them,  due  to  a  very  long  delay  of  up  to  40 
years  between  exposure  and  occurrence  of  an  asbestos-related  disease  it  is  difficult  to 
assess the current OEL and the impact on the protection of workers.  

Moreover,  they  added  that  reinforcing  technical  and  financial  assistance  support  for 
homeowners  to  assess  the  presence  of  asbestos  in  their  dwellings  before  carrying  out 
renovation works would contribute to the reduction of the exposure risk of construction 
workers. 

The employers’ organisations considered that the existing preparatory procedures already 
involve social partners, including the ACSH consultations. Therefore, they do not want 
to launch a negotiation procedure pursuant Article 155 TFEU. 

1.2. Results of the second phase of the Social Partners consultation 

The  Commission  launched  a  second  phase  consultation  of  the  Social  Partners  which 
closed on 30 September 2021. This second phase consultation, focused on the envisaged 
content of possible proposals, as required under the Treaty. 

Workers’ organisations 

Two workers' organisations replied to the second phase consultation: the European Trade 
Union  Confederation  (ETUC)  and 
the  European  Federation  of  Building  and 
Woodworkers (EFBWW). They both recognised the importance of further improving the 
protection of workers from exposure to asbestos and support the revision of the exposure 
limit value in the Asbestos at Work Directive.  

Both  worker's  organisations  repeated  the  same  information  given  on  the  1st  stage 
consultation.  That  information  call  for  the  same  actions  as  the  European  Parliament 
resolution.  

The workers do not  want  to  enter negotiations under Article 155 TFEU  concerning the 
revision of the Asbestos at  Work Directive.  However, they highlight  the possibility for 

51 

 
 
discussing  issues  together  with  employers  and  seeking  converging  positions  on  related 
matters. 

Employers' organisations 

Four employers' organisations replied to the second phase consultation: BusinessEurope, 
SMEunited  (European  Association  of  Crafts  and  SMEs),  the  European  Construction 
Industry  Federation  (FIEC)  and  the  Shipyards’  &  Maritime  Equipment  Association  of 
Europe (SEAEurope). 

The  employer's  organisations  having  already  answered  the  first  reconfirmed  their 
statements. SEA Europe which only answered to the 2nd phase refers that encapsulation 
is during the lifetime of the ships the best and safest method for dealing with asbestos in 
the  maritime  industry.  They  refer  yet  that  asbestos  removal  would  cause  more  health 
risks than encapsulation. 

The employers’ organisations considered that the existing preparatory procedures already 
involve social partners, including the ACSH consultations. Therefore, they do not want 
to launch a negotiation procedure pursuant Article 155 TFEU. 

2.  CONSULTATION OF THE ACSH/WPC 

The  Advisory  Committee  on  Safety  and  Health  at  Work  (ACSH)  has  adopted,  on  24 
November  2021,  an  opinion  on  an  EU  Binding  Occupational  Exposure  Limit  Value 
(BOEL) under the Asbestos at Work Directive. 

Although there is consensus agreement on the need to substantially revise downwards the 
existing binding occupational exposure limit (OEL) to better protect workers’ health and 
safety, taking into account scientific and technical developments since the current  OEL 
of 0.1 fibres/cm³ was adopted in 2003, no consensus was reached to the limit value to be 
proposed. Thus the Government Interest Group (GIG) and the Employers Interest Group 
(EIG),  agreed  that  the  new  limit  value  should  be  set  at  0.01  f/cm3  while  the  Workers 
Interest Group (WIG) prefer a new OEL equal to 0.001 f/cm3. 

In  addition,  taking  note  of  the  technical  developments,  ACSH  recommended  replacing 
the phase-contrast microscopy (PCM), currently the most widely used methodology for 
measurement of asbestos fibres in the air at workplace, by a more modern and sensitive 
methodology based on electron microscopy (EM).  

In terms of implementation, the GIC highlighted that once many member states still use 
PCM, there will be a need for a transition period to allow the laboratories to acquire new 
equipment, train the technicians and organise interlaboratory comparison. GIC added that 
based on the experience of the member states using EM, laboratories will need 2-3 years 
to be ready. Thus, the GIG recommends the new OEL to be implemented no later than 4 
years after the entry into force of the amending Directive while the EIG refers to a larger 
(4  to  5  years)  delay.  The  WIG  demands  the  new  OEL  to  be  implemented  as  soon  as 
possible after the entry into force of the updated AWD.  

52 

 
 
3.  CONSULTATION OF OTHER STAKEHOLDERS 

In  the  context  of  the  external  study,  consultation  activities  have  been  carried  out  to 
collect detailed information on the potential impacts of modifications to the AWD that is 
not available in published literature and internet searches. Although some information on 
OELs  is  available,  limited  information  is  available  on  the  specific  concrete  risk 
management  measures  already  in  place,  as  well  as  those  that  would  need  to  be 
implemented, should proposed limits be introduced.  

The  information  sought  via  consultation  therefore  included  sizes  of  companies,  sectors 
and  processes  that  would  be  affected,  number  of  workers  exposed,  current  air 
concentrations of substances concerned (both 8-hour time weighted averages (8-h TWA) 
and 15-minutes reference periods), risk management measures currently in place, as well 
as  risk  management  measures  that  would  need  to  be  implemented  should  the  OELs  be 
modified and associated costs. 

The information gathered was used as evidence base, complementing the available data 
in  order  to  determine  the  most  appropriate  data  or  estimations  to  use  by  the  external 
contractor.  Consultation  carried  out  for  the  purposes  of  the  study  consisted  of  the 
following main activities: 

  Questionnaires; 
  Email requests (possibly in combination with questionnaires);  
  Telephone interviews; 
  Site visits; 

Mixed  methods  (combining  e.g.  questionnaire  responses  with  telephone  interviews  and 
site visits) were adopted to  ensure that a large number of organisations and individuals 
were  able  to  provide  data  and  provide  their  views  within  the  time  constraints  and 
resource  limits.  Using  mixed  methods  also  enabled  the  study  team  to  gather  varying 
details of information and to explore information further where the need arose. 

3.1.  Targeted Online Questionnaires 

Stakeholders were initially contacted via email. The e-mail provided an overview of the 
study and a link to  the questionnaires.  Stakeholders were also  able to  download a PDF 
version of the questionnaire via the website if they preferred (so that it could be shared 
among several colleagues, for example). 

Three  separate  questionnaires  were  drawn  up,  each  one  created  to  gather  information 
from different stakeholder groups: 

  Questionnaire  1  was  aimed  at  companies  whose  workers  were  exposed  to 

asbestos; 

  Questionnaire 2 was aimed at occupational health and safety experts; and  
  Questionnaire 3 was aimed at Member State authorities.  

53 

 
 
The questions aimed to collect information on processes during which worker exposure 
to  the  substances  in  question  is  likely  to  occur,  risk  management  measures  that  are 
already in place, current exposure concentrations, risk management measures that would 
need  to  be  implemented  should  the  limit  be  lowered,  and  any  other  impacts  that  could 
result from the lowering of EU level limit. 

Although  many  of  the  responses  provided  a  significant  amount  of  useful  information, 
many  of  them  were  not  sufficiently  detailed.  Other  methods  of  consultation,  allowing 
experts  to  question  and  probe  answers  further  (namely  telephone  interviews  and  site 
visits), were therefore required to obtain a more in-depth understanding of the potential 
impacts. This includes the above follow-ups. 

3.2.  Telephone interviews 

Both  national  experts  and  substance  experts  were  activated  for  the  purposes  of  the 
telephone  interviews.  Telephone  interviews  were  asked  for  in  the  online questionnaires 
as well as through direct email and phone contact.  

The  purpose  of  the  telephone  interviews  was  to  gain  more  insight  into  the  answers 
provided  in  response  to  the  questionnaires.  It  enabled  the  collection  of  more  detailed 
information  on  processes,  to  pinpoint  exactly  where  exposure  is  likely  to  occur, 
investigating  what  types  of  risk  management  measures  are  already  in  place  and  how 
effective they  are, as well as what  risk management measures would  be required if  the 
limit was lowered and other potential ramifications for the company. 

3.3.  Email requests 

As supplement to the interviews various information was obtained by email requests. The 
purpose and questions were similar to those explained above for telephone interviews. 

3.4.  Site visits 

Companies whose activities are likely to be affected by the potential modifications to the 
AWD were also asked whether they would be willing to host a site visit, real or virtual. 
Companies  to  be  visited,  were  identified  via  the  questionnaire  or  the  contact  was 
established via EU trade associations. 

The  purpose  of  the  site visits  was  to  obtain  a  detailed  operational  understanding  of  the 
risk management measures that have already been implemented to protect workers from 
exposure to asbestos, as well as of the risk management measures that would be needed, 
and their associated costs should the limits be reduced. 

Detailed  notes  from  the  site  visit  were  drafted  and  sent  back  to  the  company  to  ensure 
that  the  information  recorded  was  accurate.  This  process  also  enabled  the  company  to 
add more detail and information to the study, where possible, and to confirm the level of 
confidentiality required to the information. 

54 

 
 
Due to the COVID-19 restrictions in place for the duration of the study, fewer physical 
site visits took place than for previous studies. Companies were furthermore reluctant to 
hold virtual site visits due to the confidential nature of the information to be shared. 

3.5.  Stakeholders targeted 

The  following  table  summarises  information  on  stakeholder  groups  targeted  and  the 
interests  represented.  The  table  demonstrates  that  all  relevant  stakeholder  groups  have 
been reached out to.  

Stakeholders targeted and interests represented 

Stakeholder type 

Interests represented 

EU Associations 

MS Authorities 

Interest of industry 

Interest of MS authorities 

Manufacturers/users 

Interest of industry 

National industry associations 

Interest of industry 

Trade Unions 

Interest of workers 

Occupational  Health  & 
Professionals 

Safety 

No  particular  interest  -  contacted  in  order  to  obtain 
scientific information 

ACSH  Working  Party  on  Chemicals 
(WPC) 

Laboratories 

Source: External study (RPA 2021) 

4.  CALL OF EVIDENCE 

Interests of industry, workers and MS authorities 

No  particular  interest  -  contacted  in  order  to  obtain 
information on sampling and analysis 

A call for evidence was published on 22 February 2022 with the deadline for comments 
running until 22 March 2022. During this period, 47 formal submissions  were received 
from a variety of stakeholders and also from individual citizens. From the 47 replies, 1 
was disregarded as it did not relate to asbestos. The repartition of replies per country is 
shown in the table. 

Replies per country 

Country 

No. of replies 

Country 

Belgium 
Germany 
Italy 
France 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Denmark 
Grand Total 

13 
8 
6 
5 
4 
2 
1 
46 

Finland 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Spain 
United Kingdom 

No. of 
replies 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
15 replies arrived from large companies, 16 from small and medium companies and 10 
from micro companies and are shared by type of organisation as follows. 

Replies per type of organisation

3 1

14

5

6

8

9

Trade Union
Company/Business organisation
NGO (Non-governmental organisation)
Academic/Research Institution

Business Association
EU Citizen
Other

Feedback from trade unions, reflects in principle the same concerns and opinions of the 
workers  organisations  as  in  their  reply  to  the  EU  social  partners’  consultation.  Trade 
unions in general call for a European Framework strategy for asbestos removal, mapping 
of asbestos, training of workers and lowering the current OEL to 0,001 f/ cm3 (the same 
limit value as proposed by the European Parliament in its resolution). One Austrian trade 
union103  focused  on  explaining  Austrian  situation  considering  important  the  general 
prevention, so that workers’ dangers can be detected, averted or treated at an early stage. 

Companies  and  business  organisations  feedback  is  in  line  with  the  position  of  the 
employers’  organisations  given  during  the  EU  social  partners’  consultation.  They 
reiterate that the current EU legal framework is sufficient and would rather support non-
legislative  options  as  the  revision  of  existing  or  elaboration  of  new  guidelines.  Some 
answers  indicate  that  the  revision  of  occupational  exposure  limit  value  should  be 
realistic, as their application on the ground greatly depends on whether it is feasible for 
employers to measure and implement them. It is also added that if companies are not able 
to apply limit values, they will not be able to protect workers as intended.   

The  feedback  from  NGOs  and  other  types  of  organisations  is  mixed  with  some  replies 
defending  the  adoption  of  an  OEL  no  stricter  than  0.01  f/cm3  and  the  development  or 
revision  of  guidelines,  and  1  reply104  supporting  an  OEL  of  0.001  f/cm3.  The  only  one 

103 Gewerkschaft Bau-Holz  
104 European Respiratory Society 

56 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
research institution105 replying indicates the importance to specify the width of fibres the 
OEL relates to. 

The replies from citizens reflect their concerns with general protection from asbestos.  

In  addition  to  the replies received directly on the webpage, the French authorities have 
sent their contribution by letter. They propose a revision of the OEL for a value equal to 
the French  OEL (0.01 f/cm3) and the use of electronic microscopy techniques.  In their 
view, this will ensure an appropriated equilibrium between the protection of workers and 
economic feasibility. 

105 The Finnish Institute of Occupational Healthfootnote 3 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Annex 3: Who is affected and how? 

1. 

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INITIATIVE 

1.1.  Consumers/Workers 

-  Due to  the  essential  nature  of  the  work,  costs  arising  from  working  under  stricter 
OELs will be more likely to be passed on to citizens/consumers as increased prices; 

-  Workers  will  have  the  duty  to  comply  with  the  dispositions  provided  by  the 
employers  as  regards  the  use  of  preventive  and  protective  measures  necessary  to 
comply with OSH legislation (e.g. the newly established OEL). 

1.2.  Business 

Employers: 

-  must adjust the working practices to comply with the OEL, in particular reinforcing 

existing risk management measures.  

-  may  find  it  easier  to  recruit  and  retain  staff,  reducing  the  cost  of  recruitment  and 

increasing the productivity of workers. 

1.3.  Administrations 

Member States must transpose the amended Directive into national legislation.  

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.  SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS 

I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option 

Description 

Amount 

Comments 

Savings for 
companies 

Savings for public 
sector 

Direct benefits 

€1 700 000  Reduced  absenteeism,  productivity  losses 
and  insurance  payments.  In  addition,  not 
quantified  benefits 
legal  clarity, 
simplification  in  ensuring  legal  compliance 
and  a  more  balanced  level  playing  field  for 
businesses across the EU. 

include 

€3 400 000  Having reduced health care costs. Avoidance 
of  loss  of  productivity  and  mitigation  of 
financial  loss  of  national  social  security 
systems, reducing the costs of healthcare and 
the loss of tax revenue due to morbidity and 
mortality. 

Savings for 
workers & 
families 

Method 2: €166 000 000 

Method 1: €323 000 000 

More  effective  protection  of  their  health, 
reducing  suffering  of  workers  and  their 
length,  quality  and 
families, 
productivity  of their  working  lives,  avoiding 
premature deaths, less costs of informal care. 

increased 

Administrative cost savings related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach* 
Savings for 
companies and 
citizens 

n.d. 

for 

companies 
savings 
Administrative 
operating  in  different  Member  States  may 
occur however these are not considered to be 
significant. 
No  administrative  savings  are  foreseen  for 
citizens 

Note:  Estimates  are  rounded  and  are  relative  to  the  baseline  as  a  whole  (i.e.,  the  impact  of 
individual actions/obligations of the preferred option are aggregated together). 

II. Overview of costs – Preferred option 

Businesses 

Administrations 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

Compliance costs  

€3 billion  

€17 billion 

€1.5 million 

Monitoring costs 

Administrative costs 

 Measurements 
 Notifications 

€110 million 

€15 million 
€650 million 

Costs related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach 

  Administrative costs 

(for offsetting) 
Notifications 

n.a. 

€ 650 million-  
to €2.18 bn  

€420 million 

Note:  Estimates  are  rounded  and  are  relative  to  the  baseline  as  a  whole  (i.e.,  the  impact  of 
individual actions/obligations of the preferred option are aggregated together). 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  RELEVANT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS 

III. Overview of relevant Sustainable Development Goals – Preferred Option(s) 
Expected  progress  towards 
Relevant SDG 
the Goal 

Comments 

SDG no. 3 – Good 
health and well-being. 
Ensure healthy lives 
and promote well-being 
for all at all ages 

The initiative will contribute to 
substantially increase health of 
workforce in European Union 
through the prevention of cancer 
disease and cancer deaths due to 
exposure to asbestos. 

The initiative will avoid 
663 cases of cancer to occur 
in the next 40 years from 
the exposure to asbestos. 

SDG no. 8 - Decent 
work and economic 
growth. Promote 
sustained, inclusive and 
sustainable economic 
growth, full and 
productive employment 
and decent work for all 

SDG no. 9 - Industry, 
innovation and 
infrastructure. Build 
resilient infrastructure, 
promote inclusive and 
sustainable 
industrialization and 
foster innovation 

SDG no. 12 - 
Responsible production 
and consumption. 
Ensure sustainable 
consumption and 
production patterns 

Through the lowering the OEL 
the initiative will contribute 
directly to a decent work 
environment.  

The benefits of healthier 
staff and better working 
conditions will contribute to 
an easier recruitment and 
retention of staff. Workers’ 
productivity will likely also 
increase, as a result of 
lower absenteeism. 

The initiative will impact 
positively the development of 
new technology as a 
consequence of the need to 
implementation more efficient 
risk management measures to 
comply with the stricter OEL.  

A reduction of asbestos dust is 
expected as a result of risk 
management measurements put 
in place to comply with a 
stricter OEL.  
Thus, the initiative would have a 
limited positive impact, namely 
on environmentally sound 
management of chemicals and 
all wastes throughout their life 
cycle. 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 4: Analytical methods 

1.  MONETISATION OF THE HEALTH IMPACTS  

1.1. Health impacts 

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 current  levels  of exposure, as 
well as on the projected future levels of exposure in the absence of the proposed measure, 
i.e. the 'baseline scenario'.  

For  a  given  reduction  in  exposure  levels,  it  is  then  necessary  to  estimate  the  expected 
decrease in the incidence of cancer cases over a given timeframe.  

The current and future cases of ill health have been estimated using the following inputs: 

-  The Exposure Risk Relationships (ERRs); 
-  The numbers of workers exposed; 
-  The exposure concentrations; and 
-  Trends in the exposed workforce and exposure concentrations. 

On this basis, we can therefore calculate the health impact which can be defined as the 
number of persons (“cases”), suffering from cancer due to this occupational exposure. 

It has to be kept in mind that the ERR only applies on the most critical cancer site, which 
is  given  by  the  assessment  of  the  European  Chemicals  Agency  /  Committee  for  Risk 
Assessment  (ECHA/RAC),  and  only  comment  qualitatively  on  further  cancer  sites, 
which may be linked to exposure to asbestos; 

Therefore, the calculated health impact (e.g., in terms of “number of estimated cases with 
health  impairments”)  is  not  identical  to  the  “real”  health  impact,  but  is  just  an 
approximation, which may underestimate the full impact of the occupational exposure to 
asbestos. However, there are other uncertainties leading to under- or overstimates. These 
are further developed further in this annex.   

Exposure Risk Relationships 

The starting point for a cancer risk impact assessment is the OEL proposed by RAC and 
the respective RAC opinion, together with the annexed background report. Asbestos is a 
non-threshold  carcinogen  and  consequently,  no  health-based  OEL  could  be  identified. 
Instead, an exposure-risk relationship (ERR) was derived, expressing the excess risk for 
lung  cancer  and  mesothelioma  mortality  (combined)  as  a  function  of  the  fibre 
concentration in the air. 

The exposure-risk relationship was calculated for all types of asbestos by combining all 
studies, regardless of the asbestos fibre type the working population are exposed to. The 

61 

 
 
 
 
exposure-risk relationship focuses on air concentrations, at and below the current OEL of 
0.1 fibre per cm3.  

The ERR was determined for a working life of exposure at several exposure levels for 8 
hours  per  day  and  5  days  per  week  over  a  40  years  working  life  period  (starting  at  20 
years).  The  excess  risk  was  calculated  until  89  years  of  age.  The  analyses    focused  on 
exposure levels at and below the current EU OEL. 

Dose Response relationships 

As asbestosis (fibrotic lung changes due to long-term asbestos exposure are expected at 
concentrations only above the current limit value set by the Asbestos at Work Directive 
of 0.1 fibres/cm3, no DRR for asbestosis is derived. 

The number of workers exposed 

It is important to calculate the number of workers potentially exposed to a substance in 
order to calculate the potential benefits of implementing any new measures.  

Data on exposed workforce are available from national databases in a number of Member 
States.  The  data  in  general  include  exposed  workforce  from  activities  subject  to 
notification. This data was then extrapolated to EU27 on a per capita basis. 

1.2. Monetisation of the health impacts 

Specific guidance is provided in the Better Regulation (BR) Toolbox for health impacts 
(BR Tool #32). This is summarised in the table below. 

Table 1: Better Regulation Toolbox on health impacts 

Aspect 

Guidance 

Health impacts 

Direct impacts 

Indirect  impacts:  does  the  option  influence  the  socio-economic  environment 
that can determine health status? 

To  assess  direct  and  indirect  health  impacts  monetary  and  non-monetary 
methodologies can be used. 

Non-monetary  approaches:  Quality  adjusted  life  years  (QALYs),  Disability 
adjusted life years) (DALYs), Healthy life years (HLYs). 

Monetary  approaches:  preference-based  approaches  Willingness  to  pay 
(WTP),  Willingness  to  accept  (WTA)  ->  Value  of  Statistical  Life  (VOSL), 
Value  of  Life-Year  (VOLY),  accounting-style  approaches  (cost  of  illness 
method=only medical expenses, human capital method=loss of future earnings 
in case of disability or premature death) 

Source:  External  study.  RPA  (2021)  (Source:  Better  Regulation  (BR)  Toolbox  –  Tool  health 

impacts (BR Tool #32)) 

Focusing on the example of cancer, the costs of cancer can be divided into: 

62 

 
 
 
  Direct  costs:  These  are  the  costs  of  healthcare,  in  other  words,  the  medical  costs 
associated with the treatment of cancer and other costs, including non-medical costs. 
Other direct costs may be incurred by the patients (say, the cost of transport to attend 
appointments)  but  also  by  their  family/friends,  for  example,  through  providing 
unpaid care. 

  Indirect  costs:  These  are  the  monetary  losses  associated  with  the  time  spent 
receiving  medical  care,  including  productivity  losses  due  to  time  spent  away  from 
work  or  other  usual  activities  and  lost  productivity  due  to  premature  death. 
Employers  might  also  bear  costs  indirectly  through  inter  alia  loss  of  output; 
payments  related  to  sick  leave;  administrative  costs  related  to  a  worker’s  absence; 
additional  recruitment  costs;  loss  of  experience/expertise;  overtime  working; 
compensation payments (although this may be covered by some form of employer’s 
liability insurance); and insurance premiums. Depending on the national structure of 
social security provision, the government (tax payers) may also bear the costs of any 
disability/social  security  payments  and  will  also  suffer  losses  through  foregone  tax 
receipts. 

  Intangible  costs:  These  include  the  non-financial  ‘human’  losses  associated  with 

cancer, e.g., reduced quality of life, pain, suffering, anxiety and grief. 

In economic impact terms, the total social costs106 of ill health are measured by the costs 
borne for health care provision, together with lost output (including productivity losses), 
gross  wage  and  non-wage  labour  costs  of  absent  workers  (such  as  loss  of  experience), 
administrative  costs  and  the  intangible  costs.  These  represent  the  direct  and  indirect 
resource costs and the non-market ‘external’ costs of illness. The other costs listed above 
(e.g,.  insurance  premiums)  relate  to  what  are  commonly  referred  to  as  ‘transfer 
payments’,  which  do  not  give  rise  to  net  welfare  effects.  As  a  result,  they  are  not 
considered in economic analyses, even though they may be important in financial terms 
to an individual worker or an employer. 

1.3. Benefits Model 

1.3.1.   Introduction 

The key endpoints for asbestos are lung cancer and mesothelioma.  

The  key  model  inputs  are  summarised  below.  The  inputs  are  those  parameters  whose 
variation changes  the results and for which the  model is  run multiple times to  derive  a 
benefits curve. 

106 From a welfare economic perspective.  

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 2: Key model inputs 

Parameter 

Explanation 

Rx:  Estimate  of  the  risk  or 
fraction of workers affected 

Exposure-Risk Relationship (ERR)  

ExW: Exposed workforce 

Number of workers exposed at different points in time 

Cx: Exposure concentration 

8-hr TWA (time-weighted average) that the workers are exposed to (real 
concentration,  i.e.  if  personal  protection  equipment  (PPE)  is  currently 
worn, the measured concentrations are adjusted to take into account PPE 
where possible) 

Source: External study. RPA (2021) 

In  addition  to  the  inputs,  the  model  is  underpinned  by  a  range  of  default  assumptions 
regarding  the  onset  of  the  disease  and  its  effects.  Some  of  these  assumptions  are  a 
simplification  of  complex  real  life  scenarios  or  best  estimates  (where  authoritative 
evidence could not be identified from readily available literature).  

The key areas in which assumptions had to be made to enable the calculations are set out 
below. 

Table 3: Key assumptions and their consequences for the sensitivity analysis 

Parameter 

Explanation 

MinEx 

MaxEx 

Lat 

Dist 

Onset of the disease 

The minimum exposure duration required to develop the endpoint 

The time needed to reach the maximum risk (i.e. after the MaxEx has been reached, 
the risk of effects do not increase) 

The latency with which the effect is demonstrated 

The distribution of cases over the relevant period  

The effects of the disease 

Mortality 

Mortality rate as a result of the relevant condition 

Value of a case  

Monetary value of a case taking into account the direct, indirect, and intangible costs 

Source: External study. RPA (2021) 

The  model  provides  a  good  approximation  of  the  order  of  magnitude  of  the  expected 
impacts and the core calculations are supported by sensitivity analysis. The outputs of the 
model include: 

•  The number of new cases for each health endpoint assigned to a specific year in 

the 40 year assessment period; 

•  The Present Value (PV) of the direct, indirect, and intangible costs of each case. 

64 

 
 
 
1.3.2.  Key model inputs 

i.  Rx: estimate of the risk or fraction of workers affected 

The  risk  of  developing  the  relevant  effect  is  estimated  by  combining  exposure 
concentrations  with  the  excess  risk  of  developing  cancer  due  to  lifetime  occupational 
exposure to a substance (taken here to mean 40 years). 

ii.  ExW: Exposed workers 

Exposed workforce was estimated through the analysis of available national databases107 
in a number of Member States and extrapolated to EU27 on a per capita basis.  

Two  distinct  issues  are  usually  covered  under  the  term  ‘turnover’.  Primarily,  turnover 
refers to the natural turnover rate resulting from workers leaving their employer and new 
workers joining. In addition, it can refer to the turnover triggered by those that are absent 
from work due to illness and replaced by others. 

However, turnover refers to the rate by which workers change employment type as it is 
considered that often workers when leaving one employer are employed for similar work 
by another employer. As consequence workers may be exposed for longer time in similar 
jobs  that  indicated  by  the  average  times  workers  are  employed  by  the  individual 
employer.  

It is assumed that there is a turnover of 5% per year. The 5% per year is lower than the 
turnover  ratios  in  most  of  the  published  literature  and  Eurostat,  which  are  typically 
derived at the level of individual companies rather than sectors. However, it is common 
that, e.g., construction workers would continue to work within construction for a major 
part of their work life, but it is uncertain to what extent they would continue with a job 
function  with  a  specific  exposure  situation.  It  is  considered,  in  accordance  with  the 
assumptions in  previous studies, that a ratio of 5% is deemed appropriate to account for 
the fact that some workers may continue to work in the same sector and continue to be 
exposed to the same substances. 

iii.  Cx: Exposure concentration  

One  or  more  exposure  scenarios  have  been  modelled  based  on  data  sourced  from 
literature and consultation – these scenarios are used for the estimation of the costs and 
benefits (cost savings from reduced ill-health) of the OEL options. 

The number of workers exposed at levels of relevance for the assessment of establishing 
an OEL is derived from consultation with relevant companies and industry associations, 
databases,  literature,  workers'  associations  and  other  sources.    For  each  of  the  relevant 
sectors, distributions  of  workers over  exposure levels  were  established.  In general,  it is 
assumed  that  the  exposure  concentrations  are  lognormal  distributed,  and  exposure  data 
collected are fitted to a lognormal distribution for which the key parameters such as the 

107 The data in general include exposed workforce from activities subject to notification according AWD. 

65 

 
 
                                                 
50th, 75th, 90th and 95th percentiles are estimated (please note that these parameters may 
differ between substances).   

When the main parameters (different percentiles) of a lognormal distribution have been 
estimated, the exposed workforce is divided into several (typically five) exposure bands 
and each of these exposure bands is assigned a representative exposure or biomonitoring 
concentration. For the band with the lowest exposure, the highest exposure concentration 
in  that  band  is  typically  taken  as  representative.  For  the  highest  exposure  band,  the 
geometric mean (GM) of the concentrations in that band is taken as representative. For 
the intervening bands, the arithmetic mean (AM) of each band is taken as representative.  

Where such information is available, it was tried to establish for all reported data whether 
these  are  a  result  of  personal  or  stationary  sampling  and  whether  they  reflect  exposure 
with or without wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). 

1.3.3.   Key assumptions 

i.  MinEx  and  MaxEx  –  The  minimum  exposure  duration  required  to  develop  the 

endpoint 

The model assumes that no cases arise until the minimum exposure duration required to 
develop the endpoint (MinEx) has expired. The default MinEx is two years for cancer, a 
standard assumption for a chronic condition. The MaxEx reflect the time needed to reach 
the  maximum  risk  (i.e.  after  the  MaxEx  has  been  reached,  the  risk  of  effects  do  not 
increase). The MaxEx for asbestos was assumed at 40 years.  

ii.  Dist – the distribution of cases between start of exposure and Year 40 

Valuing  the  cost  of  occupational  illness  involves  applying  discounted  costs  to  future 
cases  which  requires  that  the  estimated  cases  over  a  40  year  period  are  assigned  to 
specific years. However, the ERR developed is for 40 years of exposure. 

‘Dist’  refers  to  the  distribution  of  cases  between  start  of  exposure  and  Year  40,  also 
taking MinEx into account. 

iii.  Cancer 

For reasons  of simplicity,  the  following  approach is  used to  distribute the total  40-year 
cancer risk (i.e., not incidence but risk since incidence is delayed due to latency) over the 
40  year  period:  It  is  assumed  that  no  risk  arises  until  MinEx  has  been  reached.  It  is 
assumed that, subsequently, the distribution is linear, i.e. 0% of the excess risk arises in 
year 2 and 100% of the excess risk arises by year 40.  

iv.  Latency 

Cancer endpoints  

By  way  of  simplification,  a  single  latency  value  is  used  for  the  calculation  of  the  core 
scenario.  According  to  Rushton  et  al.  (2012),  all  solid  tumours  are  expected  to  have  a 
latency  of  10-50  years,  meaning  that  the  average  latency  is  30  years.  A  latency  of  30 
years is used as a default for Lung cancer and mesothelioma. 

66 

 
 
As a summary, the method used in the model to estimate the incidence of disease and the 
relevant costs over time is shown graphically below. 

Figure 1 - Incidence and costs of disease over time. Source RPA study 2021 

v.  ModEX  - the modelled exposure duration 

The ERRs is for a 40-year period. The modelled exposure duration is thus 40 years. 

Whilst  it  is  unlikely  that  a  single  worker  is  exposed  to  a  substance  at  a  constant 
concentration throughout their whole working life, the 40 year period has been chosen in 
order to be protective to workers by assuming a worst-case scenario. The evidence used 
for  the  development  of  the  ERR  means  that  the  greatest  certainty  about  the  ERR  is  at 
lifetime exposure, i.e., 40 years.  

It  is  highly  likely  that  the  real  exposure  duration  is  shorter  than  ModEx  (the  modelled 
exposure duration) and this have been taken into account by use of the staff turnover for 
the estimations as described elsewhere.  

vi.  MoR – mortality rate 

Mortality rate as a result of the relevant condition is important since different monetary 
values  are  applied  to  mortality  and  morbidity.  The  mortality  rate  for  lung  cancer  and 
mesothelioma is 80% (External study. RPA 2021) 

vii.  Treatment period 

It was estimated a treatment period of 5 years.  

viii.  Monetary value of the relevant endpoint 

The approach to the monetisation of ill health effects is based on the following approach. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4: Benefits framework 

Category 

Cost 

Notes 

Direct 

Healthcare 

Informal care108 

Cost  of  medical  treatment,  including 
hospitalisation, surgery, consultations, 
radiation 
therapy, 
chemotherapy/immunotherapy, etc. 

Opportunity  cost  of  unpaid  care  (i.e. 
the  monetary  value  of  the  working 
and/or  leisure  time  that  relatives  or 
friends provide to those with cancer)  

Cost  for  employers  (e.g. 
insurance) 

liability 

Cost  to  employers  due  to  insurance 
payments and absence from work 

Indirect 

Mortality – productivity loss 

Morbidity – lost working days 

Intangible 

Method 1 WTP: Mortality 

The  economic  loss  to  society  due  to 
premature death 

Loss  of  earnings  and  output  due  to 
absence  from  work  due  to  illness  or 
treatment 

A  monetary  value  of  the  impact  on 
quality of life of affected workers  

Method 1 WTP: Morbidity 

Method 2 DALY: Mortality 

Method 2 DALY: Morbidity 

Source: External study. Analysis by RPA, COWI & FoBiG 

Two Methods to the monetisation of intangibles have been adopted: 

•  Method 1: Application of a single WTP value to each case; and 

•  Method 2: Use of DALYs (Disability adjusted life year) and their monetisation. 

1.4. Benefits assessment 

The health benefits of implementing new or revised OELs are then calculated in terms of 
the costs of ill health avoided. 

1.4.1.   Benefits to workers & families 

The direct and indirect resource costs are estimated using market-based information, for 
example, data on health care costs, and estimates of lost output (i.e. the value of a day’s 
work). 

108 A decision has been taken to include informal care costs in this analysis even though some elements of 
these costs may also have been included in individuals’ willingness to pay values to avoid a future case of 
ill health. This decision may result in a slightly overestimation of the benefits.  

68 

 
 
                                                 
Added  to  these  are  the  ‘human’  or  intangible  costs  associated  with  a  case,  which  are 
measured in  terms  of  an individual’s willingness  to  pay for the reduction in  the risk of 
mortality or morbidity (Method 1) or monetised DALYs (Method 2).  

Under Method 1, the most commonly used means of estimating individuals’ WTP for a 
reduction in the risk of an illness is through the use of experimental markets and survey 
techniques  (e.g.  contingent  valuation  or  contingent  ranking  studies)  to  directly  elicit 
individuals’ WTP for a reduction in the risk of death or morbidity.  

The key measures are the value of a statistical life – a VSL – and the value of a case of 
morbidity  (value  of  cancer  morbidity  VCM  or  value  of  morbidity  VM).  The  VSL  is 
essentially  a  measure  of  a  change  in  the  risk  of  fatality,  where  this  is  found  by 
determining  individuals’  willingness  to  pay  for  a  small  change  in  risk  which  is  then 
summed across the population at risk.  

1.4.2.  Benefits to employers 

The revision of OELs have obvious benefits for workers, namely in terms of their health 
but  also,  indirectly,  on  their  earnings.  Employers  will  also  reap  benefits  from  their 
employees being less at risk of occupational illness. Such benefits include: 

•  higher labour productivity resulting from reductions in absenteeism and associated 

production losses; 

•  reduced administrative or legal costs relating to employees who are ill;  
•  reduced insurance premiums; 
•  reduced reputational risks; and 
•  reduced sick leave payments. 

1.4.3.  Benefit to employers and workers – lost earnings and productivity losses 

Individuals  will incur costs associated with  their  inability to  work in  terms of a loss of 
earnings,  including  losses  linked  to  days  of  for  treatment  as  well  as  days  off  due  to 
illness.  Luengo-Fernandez  et  al.  (2013)  developed  estimate  of  the  magnitude  of  such 
costs by Member State in  terms  of  an average cost  per fatal or non-fatal cancer. These 
included  what  are  referred  to  as  “productivity  losses”  due  to  early  death  and  then  lost 
working days due to morbidity effects. Across all cancers, an average figure of €5,047 is 
given for productivity losses and €1,118 for the costs associated with lost working days 
due to morbidity effects (with these based on lost wages as the measure of lost output).  

There are difficulties in including the type of estimates generated by Luengo-Fernandez 
et al. (2013) for lost working days within the analysis carried out here due to the potential 
for double counting.  It  is not  clear whether the figures  adopted in  the external  study to 
reflect the intangible or human costs of cancer mortality and morbidity (i.e., €4 million 
and €400,000 respectively) also include an element related to the loss of income. If they 
do, then to include a separate cost item to reflect  lost income would result in a double-
counting of impacts.  

1.4.4.   Benefits to the public sector – cost of healthcare 

69 

 
 
Key  data  from  Luengo-Fernandez,  et  al109  have  been  used  for  the  calculation  of  the 
avoided healthcare costs of illness. EUR 7 200/year is used in the model as the average 
cost for ‘all cancers’. 

2.  COST MODEL 

2.1. Compliance cost assessment 

2.1.1.   Introduction 

This section describes the methodology for compliance cost assessment. 

The  exposure  situations  for  asbestos  differs  significantly  from  the  general  exposure 
patterns for most other hazardous substances as the activities are not located at specific 
sites,  but  the  workers  are  moving  from  site  to  site  and  undertake  many  different 
activities, each with its specific exposure characteristics. The work is in this respect more 
like the work undertaken by maintenance workers for other substances. Even if the RPE 
in the general hierarchy of the RMMs is the last resort, in practice most workers exposed 
to  asbestos  use  RPE  in  combination  with  other  RMMs  to  keep  the  breathing 
concentration below the OEL. This is recognised in the AWD, Article 12: "In the case of 
certain activities such as demolition, asbestos removal work, repairing and maintenance, 
in  respect  of  which  it  is  foreseeable  that  the  limit  value  set  out  in  Article  8  will  be 
exceeded  despite  the  use  of  technical  preventive  measures  for  limiting  asbestos  in  air 
concentrations  workers  shall  be  issued  with  suitable  respiratory  and  other  personal 
protective equipment, which must be worn.” 

It is expected that the measures taken by each company in response to a new OEL would 
include  a  combination  of  more  efficient  RPE  (for  some  workers)  and  more  efficient 
technical/organisational RMMs.  In order to reflect this, a specific cost model has been 
developed  for  asbestos  that  relies  on  asbestos  specific  packages  of  measures  to  control 
exposure.  

Furthermore,  the  information  in  the  baseline  is  divided  into  relevant  exposure  groups 
which typically encompass more than one sector with the exception of the  construction 
and demolition sector which is spread across several exposure groups.  

2.1.2.   Key model inputs and assumptions 

The model includes the following types of inputs: 

•  OEL options; 
•  Existing OELs in Member States; 
•  Number of workers exposed by exposure group; 
•  Sectors in each of the exposure groups and numbers of companies in these sectors 

at exposure levels at or above 0.002 fibres/cm3; 

109  Luengo-Fernandez  R,  Leal  J,  Gray  A,  Sullivan  R.  Economic  burden  of  cancer  across  the  European 
Union:  a  population-based  cost  analysis.  Lancet  Oncol.  2013  Nov;14(12):1165-74.  doi:  10.1016/S1470-
2045(13)70442-X. Epub 2013 Oct 14. PMID: 24131614. 

70 

 
 
                                                 
•  Number of small, medium and large enterprises in each of the exposure groups 

and sectors at exposure levels at or above 0.002 fibres/cm3; 

•  Estimated breakdown of RPE used; 
•  Effectiveness of RMMs (in particular RPE); 
•  Cost of RMMs; 
•  Discount rates; 
•  Existing level of compliance with the target OEL (i.e. national OELs in France, 

Germany and the Netherlands);  

•  Estimated training needs; 
•  Costs of analysis for compliance monitoring at the different reference levels; and 
•  Need for compliance monitoring measurements.  

The output is the costs of implementing the OEL split by: 

•  Exposure group; 
•  Company size: small, medium and large; and  
•  Capital expenditure (one-off) and operating expenditure (recurrent) costs. 

2.1.3.   Relevant RMMs 

The  following  RMMs  are  considered  for  the  assessment  of  compliance  costs  for 
companies: 

•  Various RPE (need for applying RPE with a higher protection factor). 
•  Installation of local exhaust ventilation by use of tools. 
•  Further use of vacuum cleaners. 
•  Further use of wetting agents and use of wetting agents of higher efficiency. 
•  Use of various enclosures (part containment, full containment). 
•  Further training of staff. 
•  Further need for monitoring. 

Furthermore, for activities currently not subject to notification, the following RMMs are 
included in the cost assessment: 

•  Health surveillance. 
•  Notification. 

2.1.4.  RPE use in the model 

For  the  estimations  of  distribution  of  the  current  use  of  RPE,  it  is  assumed  that  for  all 
workers, the exposure concentration when the RPE is taken into account should be below 
the OEL (so at a maximum 95% of the workers are exposed at concentrations below the 
OEL).  

It is assumed that RPE with a higher assigned protection factor (APF) would be applied 
in order to bring the breathing concentration down if the OEL is lowered and that the use 
of more efficient RPE is combined with use of other RMMs. The costs are calculated on 
the  basis  of  the  exposure  concentrations  for  each  exposure  group  and  the  differences 
between the baseline use of RPE and the use of RPE for each reference OEL scenario.  

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.5.   RMMs other than RPE 

The RMMs other than RPE considered in the model is the staff time due to increased use 
of vacuum cleaning and dust suppression techniques. 

It is expected that the measures taken by each company in response to a new OEL would 
include  a  combination  of  more  efficient  RPE  (for  some  workers)  and  more  efficient 
technical/organisational  RMMs.  More  specifically,  it  is  expected  that  increased  costs 
would  be  incurred  for  more  extensive  use  of  dust  suppression  and  vacuum  cleaning 
techniques – it is assumed that no new equipment would be needed but staff would have 
to  spend  more  time  using  existing  vacuum  cleaning  and  dust  suppression  equipment. 
These costs are therefore approximated by focusing on the share of staff costs in the total 
cost of asbestos control.  

3.  LIMITATIONS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 

The  different  types  of  key  limitations  and  uncertainties  and  their  significance  for  the 
results is summarised below. 

Exposure to asbestos does not immediately result in visible negative health impacts and 
there is a latency period for effects to emerge once workers are exposed. Consequently, 
introducing a stricter EU OEL which reduces exposure would not see benefits arising in 
terms of reduced incidence of lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer and ovarian 
cancer until sometime in the future. The latency period for lung cancer and mesothelioma 
arising from exposure to asbestos is estimated at 30 years. Cases arising from exposure in 
year 40 but  which do not  become visible until after the 30-year latency period are also 
included in the benefits modelling.  

On  the  other  hand,  the  introduction  of  lower  EU  OELs  will  require  companies  to 
implement  measures  immediately  in  order  to  comply  with  the  regulations.  The  cost 
model assumes an investment cycle of 20 years for the sectors with workers exposed to 
asbestos. Consequently, it is assumed that the capital expenditures required will be made 
at  the  start  and  then  again  after  20  years  to  update  and  improve  equipment  further. 
Operational expenditures will be carried out throughout the 40-year assessment period.  

Given  that  the  assessment  period  is  relatively  long,  the  estimates  are  particularly 
impacted by the rate used to discount future costs and benefits.  The sensitivity analysis 
explored  therefore  the  effect  of  different  assumptions  regarding  the  discount  rate.  The 
effect  of  declining  discount  rate  is  considered  to  be  less  noticeable  in  case  of  costs  as 
they  are  realised  from  the  beginning  of  the  assessment  period  and  are  therefore  not  as 
heavily  discounted  as  benefits  (resulting  from  costs  savings  of  avoiding  cases  of 
mesothelioma, lung cancer, laryngeal cancer and ovarian cancer). The below two tables 
present the results of the sensitivity analysis performed in relation to discount rate. 

In the first (declining discount rate), a rate of 4% is used for the first 20 years and then 
decreases to 3% for the remaining 20  years.  In the second table, the impacts of a 1.5% 
discount rate applied to risk to life values are shown. 

72 

 
 
 
Table 5 - Sensitivity of declining discount rate on the cost, benefits relative to the 
baseline and CBR, for each OEL & benefit methods (€ million) 

fibre/cm3 

0.001 

0.002 

Main 

0.01 

0.1 

Benefits M1 

€ 420 million 

€ 410 million 

€ 330 million 

€0 million 

Benefits M2 

€ 220 million 

€ 210 million 

€ 170 million 

€0 million 

Cost 

CBR M1 

CBR M2 

€ 94 000 million 

€ 76 000 million 

€ 24 000 million 

€0 million 

220 

430 

190 

360 

70 

140 

0 

0 

Declining discount rate  

Benefits M1 

€ 630 million 

€ 610 million 

€ 490 million 

€0 million 

Benefits M2 

€ 330 million 

€ 320 million 

€ 250 million 

€0 million 

Cost 

CBR M1 

CBR M2 

€ 97 000 million 

€ 78 000 million 

€ 25 000 million 

€0 million 

150 

290 

130 

240 

50 

100 

0 

0 

Table 6 - Sensitivity of 1.5% discount rate applied to risk to life values relative to 
the baseline and CBR, for each OEL & benefit methods (€ million) 

fibre/cm3 

0.001 

0.002 

Main 

0.01 

0.1 

Benefits M1 

€ 420 million 

€ 410 million 

€ 330 million 

€0 million 

Benefits M2 

€ 220 million 

€ 210 million 

€ 170 million 

€0 million 

Cost 

€ 94 000 million 

€ 76 000 million 

€ 24 000 million 

€0 million 

CBR M1 

CBR M2 

220 

430 

190 

360 

70 

140 

0 

0 

1.5% discount rate  

Benefits M1 

€ 1 700 million 

€ 1 600 million 

€ 1 300 million 

€0 million 

Benefits M2 

€ 850 million 

€ 830 million 

€ 660 million 

€0 million 

Cost 

€ 94 000 million 

€ 76 000 million 

€ 24 000 million 

€0 million 

CBR M1 

55 

CBR M2 
Source: External study, RPA 2021 

110 

48 

92 

18 

36 

0 

0 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
A  common  ERR  is  derived  for  lung  cancer  and  mesothelioma.  However,  the  latency 
period  is  different  for  the  two  endpoints  with  significantly  longer  latency  period  for 
mesothelioma  than  for  lung  cancer.  The  estimation  is  done  so  that  all  cases  that  will 
occur  over  the  assessment  period  are  included  in  the  benefit  estimation.  However,  the 
longer  the  latency  the  more  heavily  discounted  are  the  benefits.  A  median  30-year 
latency  has  been  assumed.  The  sensitivity  analysis  explores  the  effect  of  a  shorter 
latency,  which is  more  characteristic for the lung cancer endpoint. Assuming a 10-year 
latency increases the benefits significantly. The impacts are shown in the following table.  

Table 7 - Sensitivity of a shorter latency period on the cost, benefits relative to the 
baseline and CBR, for each OEL & benefit methods (€ million) 

fibre/cm3 

0.001 

0.002 

0.01 

0.1 

Main 

Benefits M1 

€ 420 million 

€ 410 million 

€ 330 million 

€0 million 

Benefits M2 

€ 220 million 

€ 210 million 

€ 170 million 

€0 million 

Cost 

€ 94,000 million 

€ 76,000 million 

€ 24,000 million 

€0 million 

CBR M1 

CBR M2 

220 

430 

190 

360 

70 

140 

Shorter latency 

0 

0 

Benefits M1 

€ 1,000 million 

€ 990 million 

€ 790 million 

€0 million 

Benefits M2 

€ 530 million 

€ 520 million 

€ 410 million 

€0 million 

Cost 

€ 94,000 million 

€ 76,000 million 

€ 24,000 million 

€0 million 

CBR M1 

CBR M2 

90 

180 

80 

150 

30 

60 

0 

0 

For exposure situations subject to Article 3(3) waiver, 'incidental' exposure (building and 
construction  sector),  in  addition  to  the  uncertainty  on  the  total  number  of  exposed 
workers,  a  major  uncertainty  is  linked  to  the  fact  that  many  of  the  workers  are  only 
exposed  sporadically,  which  influences  both  the  benefits  and  costs  estimated  for  this 
group. To take this into account a 50% reduction factor has been applied for this group 
for both benefits and costs. 

Costs  and  benefits  estimated  for  Exposure  Group  2  for  a  reduction  factor  of  75%  and 
25%  are  given  below.  It  will  not  affect  the  cost  benefit  ratio  significantly,  but  it  will 
affect the total costs. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 8 - Sensitivity of sporadic exposure (25% or 75%) on the cost, benefits 
relative to the baseline and CBR, for each OEL & benefit method (€ million) 

fibre/cm3 

0.001 

0.002 

0.01 

0.1 

Low (75% reduction factor) 

Benefits M1 

€ 260 million 

€ 250 million 

€ 200 million 

€0 million 

Benefits M2 

€ 140 million 

€ 130 million 

€ 100 million 

€0 million 

Cost 

€ 81,000 million 

€ 64,000 million 

€ 20,000 million 

€0 million 

CBR M1 

CBR M2 

310 

580 

260 

490 

100 

200 

0 

0 

Main (50% reduction factor) 

Benefits M1 

€ 420 million 

€ 410 million 

€ 330 million 

€0 million 

Benefits M2 

€ 220 million 

€ 210 million 

€ 170 million 

€0 million 

Cost 

€ 94,000 million 

€ 76,000 million 

€ 24,000 million 

€0 million 

CBR M1 

CBR M2 

220 

430 

190 

360 

70 

140 

0 

0 

High (25% reduction factor) 

Benefits M1 

€ 590 million 

€ 570 million 

€ 460 million 

€0 million 

Benefits M2 

€ 310 million 

€ 300 million 

€ 240 million 

€0 million 

Cost 

€ 113,000 million 

€ 92,000 million 

€ 30,000 million 

€0 million 

CBR M1 

190 

CBR M2 
Source: External study, RPA 2021 

370 

160 

310 

65 

130 

0 

0 

4.  APPROACH TO THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Potential  changes  in  the  OEL  may  subsequently  lead  to  additional  or  lower 
environmental impact.  

The  approach  to  the  assessment  of  the  environmental  impacts  includes  the  following 
steps: 

•  Persistent,  bio-accumulative,  and  toxic  (PBT)  screening:  this  step  involves 
screening  for  Persistent,  Bio-accumulative,  and  Toxic  (PBT)  properties.  To  be 
classified as PBT, all three criteria must be fulfilled.  

•  Current  environmental  exposure:  this  step  includes  consideration  current 
environmental  exposure,  including  its  sources,  background  exposure  levels, 

75 

 
 
 
 
environmental  (air  and  water)  levels  in  relation  to  hazard  data;  leading  to  a 
conclusion on the environmental presence of asbestos. 

•  Waste  management  and  disposal:  this  step  first  considers  the  classification  of 
asbestos as hazardous waste and its final treatment (disposal or recovery) routes.  
Subsequently, the potential for releases of asbestos and human health risks during 
waste management and disposal is considered. 

• 

Impact of introducing new risk management measures (RMMs) on environmental 
exposure:  this  step  assesses  whether  the  new  RMMs  are  likely  to  reduce  or 
increase the overall environmental exposure to asbestos. 

An analysis of the above-mentioned aspects supports a conclusion on the impact of the 
additional RMMs on environmental exposure to asbestos.  

76 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 5: Uses, activities and exposures  

1.  WHERE IS ASBESTOS STILL ALLOWED? 

The  manufacturing,  use  and  production  of  new  products  with  asbestos  and  use  of 
asbestos  fibres  in  mixtures  and  articles  (where  asbestos  fibres  are  added  intentionally) 
has practically been banned since the early 2000s in most EU countries and, it is banned 
at EU level via REACH (Annex XVII entry 6).  In line with this, there are no REACH 
registration data for asbestos. 

However,  a  few  derogations/exemptions/conditions  apply  with  implications  for  the 
analysis in the impact assessment:  

in  diaphragms  for  electrolysis 

  Two  companies  (AarhusKarlshamn  Sweden  AB  and  Dow  Deutschland 
Anlagengesellschaft mbH) still benefit from a derogation (until 2025) for the use 
to 
of  asbestos 
restriction111, the use in diaphragms for electrolysis installation already in use by 
2016  are  allowed  until  2025.  This  derogation  was  revisited  in  2016.  Due  to  the 
small  number  of  companies  benefitting  from  this  derogation,  the  low  likelihood 
of exposure in this application (in a diaphragm  matrix) and the fact that the use 
according  to  this  derogation  will  have  to  cease  by  2025,  this  use  is  not  further 
investigated in the current study. 

installation110.  According 

  The  continued  use  of  asbestos-containing  articles  on  the  market  before  2005  is 
still to some extent allowed according to paragraph 2 in the restriction entry. The 
paragraph  sets  out  how  Member  States  can  restrict  this  or  allow  placing  on  the 
market of such 'old articles' under certain circumstances. Such national measures 
had to be communicated to the European Commission by June 2011. By 2011 six 
Member States had some national exemptions112. 

  Buildings  are  not  considered  articles  and  the  presence  of  asbestos  historically 
incorporated  in  buildings  is  not  restricted  in  any  Member  State  via  REACH. 
Entry 6 on asbestos thus prohibits, since 1 January 2005, the incorporation of new 
asbestos into buildings, but it does not regulate asbestos already incorporated in 
buildings before that date. The presence of asbestos in buildings, if incorporated 
before 1 January 2005, is not governed by any provisions of REACH Restriction 
entry 6. 

110  Registry  of  restriction  intentions  until  outcome.  available  at:    https://echa.europa.eu/da/registry-of-
restriction-intentions/-/dislist/details/0b0236e18051c125 
111 Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/1005 of 22 June  2016 amending  Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) 
No  1907/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  concerning  the  Registration,  Evaluation, 
Authorisation  and  Restriction  of  Chemicals  (REACH)  as  regards  asbestos  fibres  (chrysotile)  (Text  with 
EEA relevance). ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/1005/oj 
112 
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/13166/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native  

the  Asbestos  Restriction,  available  at: 

  DK,  FI,  FR,  DE, 

IE,  PL.  Exemptions 

to 

77 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.  ASBESTOS IN BUILDINGS AND IN ARTICLES PLACED ON THE MARKET BEFORE 2005 

The properties of asbestos fibres have historically been used in many applications (more 
than  3,000  applications/products  in  the  era  of  peak  use)  including  roofing,  insulation 
(thermal  and  electrical),  cement  pipes  and  sheets,  flooring,  gaskets,  brakes,  shoes, 
coating, plastics, textiles, paper, mastics, thread, fibre jointing and millboards. Asbestos 
is  still  to  a  large  extent  present  in  buildings  (and  in  building  installations),  as  well  as 
other infrastructures, where it has historically been used for its insulating properties. This 
includes presence in the following building materials and articles113: 

  Floor tiles 
  Boiler insulation 
  Ceiling tiles 
  Fireproofing 
  Linoleum 
  Tank insulation 
  Adhesives 
  Acoustical finishes 
  Floor tile mastic 
  Gaskets 
  Fume hood liners 
  Plaster 
  Pipe insulation 
  HVAC duct wrap, laboratory countertops 
  Roofing 
  Pipe fittings 
  Fire doors 
  Chalkboard glue 
  Siding shingles. 

In the practical guidelines for information and training of workers involved with asbestos 
removal or maintenance work114, the most important uses are identified as: 

  Asbestos cement products (asbestos content approx. 15 %) 
  Sprayed asbestos (asbestos content up to 85 %) 
  Loose asbestos lagging (asbestos content up to 100 %) 
  Asbestos fabrics, tapes and cords (asbestos content variable; 3 – 90 %) 
  Asbestos panels (asbestos content 5-50 %) 
  Asbestos papers, cardboards, and gaskets (asbestos content 50-90 %) 

113  Environmental  Health  And  Safety:  UK  -  University  of  Kentucky.  Undated.  Fact  Sheet  -  Asbestos  in 
Building Materials. Available at: https://ehs.uky.edu/docs/pdf/env_fs_asbestos_bm.pdf  

114 https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=7478&langId=en 

78 

 
 
 
                                                 
  Asbestos-containing construction chemical products such as bitumen/tar products, 

coatings, paints, sealants and casting products (asbestos content up to 20 %) 

  Asbestos-containing floor coverings (asbestos content 15 – 90 %) 

The derogation specified in paragraph 2 of REACH Restriction Entry 6, allows continued 
use  of  articles  already  installed  and/or  in  service  before  1  January  2005.  From  the  six 
Members States which somehow restricted the use of such historical articles, it appears 
that the following types of articles might still be relevant to consider: 

  Historical/veteran vehicles 
  Ethylene/acetylene bottles (containing filters with asbestos) 
  Various spare parts 
  Shafts used for glass drawing 
  Certain offshore installations 
  Brakes 
 
Insulation or lagging for e.g. cooling water in trains 
  Fire resistant materials and fire blankets in laboratories 
  Lift shafts and lift doors 
  Boilers and tanks and tanks at certain power stations 
  Certain military uses 
  Friable vs. nonfriable ACMs 

The  AWD  and  many  guidelines  distinguish  between  friable  vs.  nonfriable  ACMs;  the 
synonymous terms un-bound and bound are used in some contexts. In general, friability 
means that an ACMs is  less resistant to  mild  abrasion  or damage and is  more likely to 
release inhalable fibres. So, the type of material and asbestos fibre type and condition are 
critical to determine friability.  

The table below was derived from the guidelines from the Health and Safety Authority in 
Ireland to provide general guidance on friable vs. non-friable ACMs. 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 1: Friable vs. nonfriable ACMs 

loose 

laggings  and 

Friable ACMs 
• Asbestos-containing dust (ACD) 
• Sprayed  coatings, 
asbestos fill 
• Millboard 
• Insulating Boards 
• Ropes, yarns and cloths 
• Paper products 
• Vinyl flooring backed with asbestos paper 
• Compressed Asbestos Fibre (CAF) gaskets 
• Asbestos cement products in degraded state 

Non-friable ACMs 
• Asbestos  cement  products  in  non-degraded 

state 

• Asbestos  bitumen  roofing  felts  &  damp 
proof  courses,  semi-rigid  asbestos  bitumen 
products and asbestos bitumen-coated metals 

• Unbacked vinyl & vinyl floor tiles 
• Textured  decorative  coatings  and  paints 

containing asbestos on plasterboard 
• Mastics sealants, putties and adhesives 
• Asbestos-reinforced PVC and plastics 
Source: Practical Guidelines on ACM Management and Abatement. Health as Safety Authority, Dublin 

As indicated from the table, the state of degradation also influences the degree to which 
the ACM is friable, e.g. for asbestos cement. 

Spaan  et  al.115  have  summarised  how  notifiers  in  the  Netherlands  have  classified  the 
different materials as friable and non-friable based on 632,346 notifications to the Dutch 
asbestos management system (SMArt)). According to the authors, it should be noted that 
determining  the  degree  of  friability  of  the  material,  and  thus  making  the  distinction 
'friable' and 'non-friable' material, is optional in the analysis of materials, and is generally 
assessed visually. 

The  overall  pattern  is  well  in  accordance  with  the  general  view  presented  in  the  table 
above,  but  for  some  material/application  groups,  the  data  demonstrate  that  the  division 
between friable and non-friable is not clear-cut but depends on various factors such as the 
specific material and the state of degradation. Overall, the following division into three 
groups can be derived:  

  Non-friable - Less than 10 % friable ACMs: Asbestos cement, glue, kit, bitumen, 

vinyl tile, polymer bound ornamental stone and imitation asbestos cement; 

  Friable  -  More  than  90  %  friable  ACMs:  insulation  materials,  spray  asbestos, 

 

board, asbestos paper, asbestos felt, asbestos chord; and 
In  between  -  More  than  10  %  of  both  friable  and  non-friable:  Polymer  bound 
coatings, asbestos-containing dust, stucco work, gaskets, friction materials.  

The asbestos cement materials accounted for about 50% of the notifications.  

In  Spain  in  2017,  asbestos  cement  represented  94.6  %  of  the  materials  handled  by 
companies notifying the activities, the remaining part consisted of sprayed asbestos and 
asbestos  coatings  on  walls,  ceilings  and  structural  elements  (0.26%),  heat  insulation 
(1.05%),  other  friable  materials:  panels,  fabrics  of  asbestos,  cardboard,  felts,  etc. 

115  Span  S,  Tromp  PC,  Schinkel  JM  (2019).  Aanknopingspunten  voor  differentiatie  in  risico's  van 
werkzaamheden  met asbest ten behoeve  van beheersregimes.  TNO 2019 R11239 | Eindrapport .TNO for 
Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid .  (In Dutch) 

80 

 
 
                                                 
(3.21%),  and  other  non-friable  materials:  putties,  paints,  adhesives,  etc.  (0.02%)116.    In 
total, the friable materials accounted for about 5%.  

3.  NATURALLY OCCURRING ASBESTOS 

Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral and exposure can occur during activities related 
to work in bedrock and soil in areas where asbestos fibres naturally occur.  Exposure to 
naturally occurring asbestos in mining, quarrying, tunnel construction, and construction 
materials  has  gained  attention  in  a  number  of  Member  States  (among  these  Finland, 
Germany,  Austria,  Italia,  and  France)  but  exposure  may  also  occur  in  many  other 
Member States.  

As noted in the Scientific report done by ECHA117, asbestos fibres are widespread in the 
environment, and are found in many areas where the original rock mass has undergone 
metamorphism.  Whereas  rock  types  in  Scandinavia  in  general  have  not  undergone 
metamorphism, such rock types are widespread in other parts of Europe. 

According to the German technical rule TRGS 517118 in the mineral deposits found when 
mining in Germany, for particular types of rock the occurrence of the asbestos minerals, 
chrysotile, tremolite, actinolite and to a lesser extent also anthophyllite needs to be taken 
into account. The occurrence of asbestos minerals is limited to particular rock types but 
this does not mean that they always occur in them. The following rock types should in 
particular be considered to be asbestos-containing:  

  Ultrabasite/peridotite (e.g. dunite, lherzolite, harzburgite), 
  Basic effusives (e.g. basalt, spilite, basanite, tephrite, phonolite), 
  Basic intrusives (e.g. gabbro, norite, diabase),  
  Metamorphic  and  metasomatically  influenced  rocks  (e.g.  metasomatic  talc 
occurrences,  green schist, chlorite and amphibole schist/bedrock (e.g.: nephrite), 
serpentinite, amphibolite).  

In special geological circumstances in individual cases other rocks can possibly contain 
asbestos. Asbestos or asbestos minerals (fibrous and non-fibrous) can occur in the rock 
formations in two distinct forms16:  

  Asbestos/asbestos minerals in crevices,  
  Asbestos/asbestos  minerals  in  "compact"  undisturbed  rocks.  The  first  form  of 

occurrence is easy to recognise in quarry inspections.  

The  asbestos  minerals  contained  in  the  rock  itself  can,  as  a  rule,  only  be  identified  by 
petrographic  studies.  Frequently,  the  asbestos  fibres  "come  about"  in  the  second  form 

116 

Informe resumen del estado de situación de la población expuesta a amianto en 2016 y 2017. Instituto 

Nacional de Seguridad y Salud en el Trabajo 
117  ECHA  Scientific  report  for  evaluation  of  limit  values  for  asbestos  at  the  workplace.  European 
Chemicals Agency, Helsinki. 
118 TRGS 517. Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA 

81 

 
 
                                                 
mentioned  only  due  to  mechanical  loads  on  the  rock  (processing)  from  non-fibrous 
asbestos minerals119. 

In Italy, exposure to asbestos in serpentine rock120  and feldspar121 has been reported and 
several studies have demonstrated that dust containing asbestos minerals generated from 
tunnelling  in  various  rock  types  is  a  major  issue  with  impacts  upon  the  environment, 
human health, worker safety and productivity of underground construction. 122 

In  a  Finnish  geological  survey,  fibrous  minerals,  including  asbestos  (e.g.  tremolite  and 
actinolite), were detected in many limestone mines and rock aggregate quarries (Junttila 
et al., 1994). Finnish guidelines on the management of asbestos in mining and quarrying 
have recently been developed123. 

The main geological  areas  in  France in  which rocks contain asbestos correspond to  the 
chain  of  the  Western  Alps  and  its  extension  into  Corsica,  to  the  external  crystalline 
massifs  of  the  Alps,  the  Massif  Central,  the  Vosges,  the  Armorican  Massif  and  the 
Pyrenees chain124.  

A guideline from the Health and Safety Security in the UK125 on asbestos in some types 
of  marble  and  other  stone  indicates  that  these  materials  include  some  sources  of 
dolomite, basalt, marble (including green marbles or ‘Verde’ stones) and vermiculite. 

As stated by ECHA even if intentional commercial uses are banned and handling of past 
commercially  used  products  is  regulated,  exposure  is  possible  when  handling  other 
minerals (e.g. talc, dolomite and olivine) where asbestos occurs as an impurity. Some of 
these minerals are in granular or powder form and they relatively easily aerosolise during 
handling. Therefore, caution is needed in such industries.  

A  Dutch  investigation  of  talc  in  cosmetic  products  analysed  232  cosmetic  products  for 
the presence of asbestiform talk. Two of the products were found to contain asbestiform 
tremolite fibres in concentrations up to 230 mg/kg and 40 mg/kg product, respectively126.  

A  German  investigation  of  57  talc  powders  (technical  and  cosmetic)  with  regard  to 
asbestos, asbestos fibres were detected in 13 samples127 In ten of the samples the weight 
content  of  asbestos  ranged  from  0.001  to  0.073%.  In  one  talc  powder  analysed  at  two 
occasions,  weight  contents  of  0.18  and  0.19%  respectively.  The  report  notes  that  it  is 

119 BAuA - Information on Substances - Asbestos - Federal Institute for Occupational Safety an Health 
120  Airborne concentrations of chrysotile asbestos in serpentine quarries and stone processing  facilities in 
Valmalenco, Italy. 
121 Asbestos contamination in feldspar extraction sites: a failure of prevention? Commentary1 
122 Airborne asbestos fibres monitoring in tunnel excavation  
123 Asbestos risk management guidelines for mines. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health. 1 
124 Identification des sources d’émission et proposition de protocoles de caractérisation et de mesures. Avis 
de l’Anses. https://www.anses.fr/fr/system/files/AIR2016SA0034Ra.pdf  
125 Asbestos-related disease statistics in Great Britain, 2020.  
126 Asbestos in cosmetic products. Study of asbestos in talc-containing cosmetic products.  
127 Asbestos in talc powders and soapstone - DGUV 

82 

 
 
                                                 
essential to request sellers of talc and soapstone to furnish proof that no asbestos can be 
detected in the material with the specified analytical methods. 

According to Eurotalc, the talc industry's representative body, "Thanks to high standards 
of  quality  control  and  selective  mining  methods  where  necessary,  the  commercial  talcs 
supplied by EUROTALC Members do not contain asbestos as defined by the European 
directive 2009/148/EC, when analysed by conventional methods."128  

4.  VOLUMES / TONNAGE   

As  described  in  previous  sections,  'new'  asbestos  is  no  longer  legally  manufactured  or 
imported. 

4.1. Historical use of asbestos 

Exposure to asbestos from buildings, installations and older (<2005) articles is linked to 
historical use of asbestos. Various Member States have banned asbestos in various years 
before  it  was  generally  banned  in  the  EU  via  various  Council  Directives  and  later  the 
REACH  Annex  XVII  entry  6.  The  historical  use  of  asbestos  as  well  as  the  status  of 
national  bans  fourteen  EU  Member  States  is  summarised  in  the  table  below.  The 
indication of ban year is somewhat simplified as bans were generally introduced stepwise 
as  also  described  for  the  EU  restrictions.  Asbestos  was  banned  by  thirteen129  European 
countries  before  the  year  2000  and  further  fifteen130  countries  have  adopted  the  ban 
between the years 2001 and 2013131.  

One conclusion to draw is that the 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. For some of the Member States, the 
ban on asbestos followed their accession to the EU. The differences may be reflected in 
difference in the presence of asbestos in e.g. means of transport (trains, vessels, vehicles, 
etc.) today as articles produced in countries where asbestos was banned 20-35 years ago 
to a higher extent would have reached their end-of-life than articles produced in countries 
where asbestos was banned after 2000. 

128 Health and Safety of Talc  
129   These  are  Austria,  Belgium,  Denmark,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Ireland,  Italy,  the  Netherlands, 
Poland, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 
130   These  are  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Greece,  Hungary,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. 
131 Asbestos: use, bans and disease burden in Europe 

83 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 2: Historical trend in use of asbestos (kg per capita/year) and status of 
national bans in 15 EU countries 

Country 

1970s 
3.92 
4.42 
2.56 

1950s 
1.16 
3.07 
0.39 

1960s 
3.19 
4.80 
1.13 

2.36 

2.91 

1.62 

Austria 
Denmark 
Croatia 
Czech 
Republic 
2.16 
Finland 
1.38 
France 
1.84 
Germany 
0.76 
Hungary 
ND 
Lithuania 
4.02 
Luxembourg 
1.29 
Netherlands 
ND 
Romania 
0.32 
Spain 
Sweden 
1.85 
Sources: IARC, 2012; Kameda et al., 2014 

2.26 
2.41 
2.60 
1.23 
ND 
5.54 
1.70 
ND 
1.37 
2.30 

1.89 
2.64 
4.44 
2.87 
ND 
5.30 
1.82 
1.08 
2.23 
1.44 

1980s 
2.08 
1.62 
2.36 

1990s 
0.36 
0.09 
0.95 

2000s 
0.00 
NA 
0.65 

Ban year * 
1990 
1986 
2013* 

2.73 

0.78 
1.53 
2.43 
3.29 
ND 
3.23 
0.72 
0.19 
1.26 
0.11 

1.30 

ND 
0.73 
0.10 
1.50 
0.54 
1.61 
0.21 
0.52 
0.80 
0.04 

0.14 

0 
0.00 
0.00 
0.16 
0.06 
0.00 
0.00 
0.55 
0.18 
NA 

2005 * 

1992 
1996 
1993 
2005 * 
2005 * 
2002 
1994 
2007 * 
2002 
1986 

ND:  No  data  available;  NA:  not  applicable  because  of  negative  use  data;  0.00  when  the 
calculated data were <0.0005. 

*  The  date  follow  the  countries  accession  to  the  EU.  A  simplified  view  as  some  forms  or 
applications may have been restricted before that day. 

It can be noted that while asbestos has long been banned in the EU, it is still used in other 
parts of the world.  World production of asbestos in  2020 is  estimated at approximately 
1.2  million  tonnes  with  Russia,  Brazil,  Kazakhstan,  and  China  as  the  largest  producer 
countries.  Asbestos-cement  products,  such  as  corrugated  roofing  tiles,  pipes,  and  wall 
panels, are expected to continue to be the leading global market for asbestos132  

4.2. Asbestos in use today 

A key question for the assessment of the future trend in exposed workforce is how much 
of the asbestos used in the past still remains in buildings, installations and products.  

Some  information  on  products  still  in  use  has  collected  through  the  stakeholder 
consultation. This information was only available from Germany, Poland and Lithuania.  

Germany.  According  to  response  from  the  German  authorities,  it  is  estimated  that 
approx. 25-30 % of the building products containing asbestos are still installed. If there is 
no risk for the users of the building, there is no obligation to remove the materials. The 
national asbestos profile for Germany133 contains information on asbestos-cement still in 
use in Germany as summarised in the table below. The table, however, indicates that in 

132 Mineral Commodity Summaries - Asbestos. US Geological Survey 
133 Germany national asbestos profile (BAuA) 

84 

 
 
                                                 
2016  up  to  86%  of  the  produced  asbestos  cement  was  still  in  use  in  the  society.  The 
national asbestos profile notes that the sum will overestimate remaining asbestos cement 
since also before 2001 some asbestos waste disposal took place.  

As indicated in the table, 70% of the asbestos was used for asbestos cement production. 
According to the profile about 90% of the asbestos was used in buildings. For the part of 
asbestos used for other materials than asbestos cement, estimates on remaining amounts 
are not available.  

Table 3: Estimated tonnage of remaining asbestos cement products in Germany 

(10%  crude 

5.7 million tonnes asbestos 
4.3 million tonnes asbestos 

Import of asbestos (GDR & FRG): 
70% used for asbestos cement production: 
Asbestos  cement  production 
asbestos):   
Asbestos  waste  disposal:  Asbestos-containing 
building materials (waste code 17 06 05): 
Asbestos cement - remaining* 
* This sum will overestimate the remaining asbestos cement since also before 2001 some asbestos waste disposal has 
prevailed. **BAuA 2020 indicates the year to be 2011, but this seems to be a missing update from previous profile, so 
it is here corrected to 2016.  
Source: External study. RPA 2021 based on Germany national asbestos profile  

6.1  million  tonnes  asbestos  cement  (2001  – 
2016) 
37 million tonnes asbestos cement (2016) ** 

43 million tonnes asbestos cement 

The  estimated  remaining  volume  of  asbestos  cement  products  is  in  the  profile  used  to 
estimate  the  remaining  roof  area  containing  asbestos  in  2016.  Using  different 
assumptions regarding the share of the asbestos cement used for corrugated roofing it is 
estimated  that  in  2016  between  223  million  m2  and  1,308  million  m2  was  still  in  use 
corresponding to 4 to 22% of the total corrugated roof area in Germany107. 

As a result of the ban of asbestos in 1993, the use of asbestos in brake pads and clutches 
for the production of new vehicles on the roads in Germany was prohibited. In the former 
GDR,  production  of  asbestos-containing  brake  pads  and  their  use  continued  until 
1989/90.  Due  to  the  nearly  complete  renewal  of  the  vehicle  fleet  over  a  time  span  of 
about 20 years, it is expected that asbestos almost no longer occurs in vehicles107.  

Poland. It is estimated that from 1952 to 1997 1.75 million tonnes of raw asbestos were 
used in the manufacture of asbestos-containing products and in industrial installations in 
Poland134,.  The  largest  share  of  asbestos  (some  65%,  mostly  chrysotile)  was  used  for 
asbestos-cement  products  assigned  for  the  construction  industry  (such  as  flat  and 
corrugated roofing sheets and wall linings). According to the author, some 1.2 billion m2 
of these products still existed in 2017. Crocidolite was used mostly for the manufacture 
of  pressure  pipes,  one  of  more  than  1,500  asbestos-containing  products.  In  2002,  there 
was  15  million  tons  of  inventoried  asbestos  in  Poland.  In  addition,  only  30  percent  of 
asbestos-containing  products  in  Poland  are  thought  to  have  been  inventoried,  meaning 

134 Rehabilitation of buildings and removal of asbestos 

85 

 
 
 
                                                 
that  it  is  uncertain  as  to  where  the  asbestos  is  located108  Most  of  asbestos  was  used  as 
roofing in private households.  

According to the current statistics of the Polish database on asbestos-containing products, 
8.3 million tonnes of products have been inventoried; of these 7.1 million tonnes remain 
to  be  neutralised  (removed  and  disposed)  corresponding  to  85%  of  the  inventoried 
asbestos-containing products, see table below. Flat and corrugated sheets for construction 
account  for  97%  of  the  inventoried  and  remaining  asbestos-containing  products.  The 
percentage accounted for by the sheets  may be  over-represented as inventories of other 
asbestos-containing products likely are more difficult to survey.  

Table 9_ Data from the Polish asbestos database  

Product 
code 

Description 

W06 

W05 

W04 

W02 

W01 

W03.2 

W03.1 

asbestos-cement 

Flat  asbestos-cement  plates  used 
in construction 
Corrugated 
sheets for construction 
Asbestos-cement  pipes  and  joints 
for removal 
Asbestos-cement  pipes  and  joints 
to be left in the ground 
Spray  insulations  with  asbestos-
containing agents 
Asbestos-rubber friction products 
Special yarns, including processed 
asbestos  fibres  (protective  fabrics 
and clothing) 
Asbestos sealants 
Woven  and  braided  tapes,  cords 
and strings 
Asbestos  and  rubber  products, 
except friction products 
W10 
Paper, cardboard 
W11.1  Asbestos-cement covers 
Asbestos-cement 
construction 
fittings (ventilation ducts, window 
sills, flue gas covers) 
Asbestos-cement 
insulating fittings 

electrical 

W11.3 

W11.2 

W07 

W08 

W09 

W11.4  PVC tiles 
W11.5  Fireproof boards 
Roofing 
putties 
felt, 
waterproofing compounds 

W11.6 

W11.7  household appliances 

W11.8 

clothes,  masks, 

Work 
contaminated with asbestos 
W11.9  Other not mentioned above 
W12.1  Secured roads 

and 

filters 

86 

Weight of products in 1,000 tonnes  Percent 
Inventoried  Neutralized  Remaining 

remaining 

665.94 

164.60 

501.33 

75% 

7 405.84 

1 017.01 

6 388.86 

86% 

106.04 

79.46 

21.44 

0.03 

0.12 

0.37 

0.59 

0.01 

0.21 
10.68 

0.32 

0.00 

0.05 
0.57 

0.02 

0.00 

0.04 

5.40 
0.15 

6.83 

4.63 

7.73 

0.01 

0.08 

0.20 

0.07 

0.00 

0.06 
2.14 

0.17 

- 

0.03 
0.04 

0.00 

0.00 

0.01 

0.67 
0.15 

99.22 

94% 

74.83 

94% 

13.71 

0.01 

0.05 

0.17 

0.52 

0.01 

0.15 
8.54 

0.15 

0.00 

0.02 
0.53 

0.02 

- 

0.03 

4.73 
0.00 

64% 

56% 

37% 

45% 

88% 

98% 

72% 
80% 

47% 

100% 

46% 
93% 

95% 

0% 

82% 

88% 
0% 

 
 
  
Product 
code 

Description 

W12.2  Unsecured roads 
Total 
Extracted 15 March 2021 

Source: Polish Asbestos Database.  

Weight of products in 1,000 tonnes  Percent 
Inventoried  Neutralized  Remaining 
0.01 
1,204 

0.00 
7,093 

0.01 
8,297 

34% 
85% 

remaining 

According  to  the  database  on  asbestos-containing  products  in  Lithuania,  some  1.2 
million tonnes of asbestos-containing products in buildings were present in the country in 
2018135 

The technical lifespan of the ACMs can be used as an indicator of when the materials are 
expected  to  be  removed.  According  to  the  Spanish  association  of  asbestos-removal 
companies136  65%  of  the  ACM  would  have  reached  the  end  of  their  technical  life  in 
2020, 87% in 2030 and 100% in 2040. 115 

The past trend in the quantities of waste containing asbestos may be used as an overall 
indicator of the past trend in activities involving removal of asbestos and may be used as 
background for the estimate on future trends. Data from the Danish Waste statistics for 
the five specific asbestos-containing waste categories, for which data are reported, show 
for the period 2011 to 2019 an increasing trend in the total quantities from 73,000 tonnes 
in  2011  to  97,000  tonnes  in  2019  (Table  5).  For  brake  pads  containing  asbestos  a 
decreasing trend is observed and in 2019 asbestos-containing brake pads still accounted 
for  approximately  20%  of  the  total  registered  amount  of  brake  pads.  In  addition  to  the 
listed categories some ACMs  may incorrectly be disposed of in  other waste categories, 
but  no  data  are  available  on  the  asbestos  content  of  other  categories.  If  the  per  capita 
remaining quantities of asbestos cement in Denmark is similar to the quantities reported 
for Germany above (the overall consumption in the countries was similar), then it would 
take  about  25  years  at  the  2019  level  of  activity  to  dispose  of  all  remaining  ACMs  in 
Denmark.  

A  similar  increasing  trend  in  total  quantities  in  asbestos-containing  building  waste  is 
observed in Germany, but for brake linings the registered tonnage in Germany has been 
zero  since  2007.  In  2017  the  total  amount  of  asbestos-containing  waste  was  475,000 
tonnes. The remaining quantities of asbestos-cement in 2016 correspond to disposal for a 
period  of  77  years  at  the  2017  level.  As  quoted  above,  according  to  the  Spanish 
association  of  asbestos-removal  companies,  nearly  100%  of  the  ACMs  would  have 
reached  the  end  of  their  lifespan  in  2040  and  it  is  expected  that  the  majority  of  the 
remaining asbestos will have been removed within the next 20 years. 

135 Aplinkos apsaugos agentūra - database on asbestos-containing products in Lithuania 
136 Guía sobre amianto 

87 

 
 
  
 
 
                                                 
Table 5: Development in the quantities of asbestos-containing waste in 1,000 
tonnes/year in Denmark 

Waste 
code 

06 13 04 

16 01 11 

17 06 01 

17 06 05 

17 06 06 

Description 

2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019 

Wastes from 
asbestos 
processing 
Brake pads 
containing 
asbestos 
Insulation 
material 
containing 
asbestos 
Construction 
material 
containing 
asbestos 
Construction 
material 
containing 
asbestos - 
dusty 

0.00
1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.00
2 

0.09 

0.04 

0.06 

0.04 

0.06 

0.11 

0.05 

0.02 

0.02 

0.04 

0.00 

0.04 

0.14 

0.27 

0.04 

0.67 

0.60 

0.48 

58 

53 

62 

73 

75 

76 

84 

85 

90 

14 

9 

8 

8 

8 

4 

3 

4 

6 

Total 

73 

62 

70 

81 

82 

80 

88 

89 

97 

Source: extract of raw data from the Danish Waste Statistics (2019) 

5.  WORKERS EXPOSURE 

5.1. Current workers exposure situation  

Current  critical  exposure is  related to  process-generated  airborne asbestos fibres. These 
can originate from natural sources (asbestos being a mineral in some soils and bedrock) 
or from ACM due to historical use of asbestos. 

5.1.1.  Exposure  to  asbestos  in  buildings  and  infrastructure  materials  and 

installations 

Exposure to in situ asbestos in buildings and infrastructure materials and installations is 
assumed to be the main source of asbestos exposure today.  

The French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety lists the 
following as the main professions at risk of inhalation of asbestos dust137:  

  Workers in asbestos removal companies; 
  Building and public works employees; 

137 Presentation, health effects, exposure and regulatory framework 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  Building and public works (construction sector) personnel involved in demolition 

or refurbishments; 

  Light  work  building  professionals,  repair  and  maintenance  staff  (plumbers, 

electricians, heating installers, painters, etc.); 

  Workers in waste treatment activities; 
  Workers at asbestos-bearing sites.  

Levels of exposure will depend on the activity around the asbestos and the applied risk 
management  measures  will  depend  on  whether  the  involved  workers  are  aware  of  the 
presence  of  exposure.  The  exposure  situations  most  relevant  for  the  EU  workforce  are 
therefore divided into the following categories: 

  Exposure situations during renovation and demolition of buildings and other 
infrastructure with ACMs which are subject to notification to the authorities. 
Potentially  exposed  workforce  includes  workers  in  companies  specialised  in 
demolition  or  more  specifically  in  asbestos  removal,  but  especially  for 
renovation  activities,  also  general  construction  workers  and  other  craftsmen 
can  be  involved.  Data  on  these  activities  (concentrations  and  exposed 
workforce) are available from databases with notified asbestos work.  

 

  Exposure situations during renovation and demolition of buildings and other 
infrastructure  subject  to  the  Article  3(3)  of  the  AWD  exemption.  In  these 
situations,  the  authorities  are  not  notified  and  data  for  these  exposure 
situations  would  not  be  included  in  databases  of  notified  asbestos  work. 
Potentially  exposed  workforce  could  be  almost  any  type  of  craftsman, 
including plumbers, carpenters, electricians and bricklayers, as well as general 
caretakers of buildings. 
'Incidental' exposure. In these situations, the worker might not beforehand be 
aware that asbestos is present, and some workers might not know when they 
encounter  asbestos.  Examples  of  'incidental'  exposure  could  be  drilling 
through  insulation  materials  of  ceilings  containing  asbestos.  Potentially 
exposed workforce could be the same occupations mentioned under the bullet 
above.  In  the  case  where  the  worker  becomes  aware  of  the  asbestos-
containing  products,  the  work  should  be  stopped,  and  a  risk  assessment 
should be undertaken to clarify which of the two situations mentioned above 
applies.  
'Passive'  exposure.  Working  in  structures/buildings  with  asbestos-containing 
products may lead to exposure to asbestos from ACMs. 

 

5.1.2.   Exposure to asbestos in trains, cars, vessels, aircraft and other articles 

Occupational  exposures  to  asbestos  releases  from  old  (<2005)  articles  may  still  be 
relevant in some situations. This could be, for example, during repair work of brakes in 
old vehicles. 

89 

 
 
  
There  might  also  be  release  of  asbestos  from  brakes  in  old  trains  leading  to  passive 
exposure of train personnel. Exposure to asbestos in trains and ships might resemble the 
above  situations,  although  it  shall  be  noted  that  demolition  of  ships  will  normally  not 
take place in Europe.  

Guidelines from The  Industry's Work Environment  Council in  Denmark  on  asbestos in 
ships138 describe the various ACMs in ships and the exposure situations. The guidelines 
note  that  asbestos  and  ACMs  have  been  used  extensively  on  ships.  It  was  used  in 
particular  as  insulation  against  heat,  cold,  moisture  and  fire.  Furthermore,  it  was  also 
used  for  sound  insulation  and  vibration  inhibition.  It  was  used  in  engine  parts,  in 
flooring,  oil  and  water  pipes  and  as  a  spark  arrestor  in  electrical  switchboards,  in  fire 
doors and as elevator brakes, surface cladding in relation to constructive fire protection 
of crew hatches, on the bridge, in galleys and to an extensive extent as parts in engines 
(friction linings, gaskets, impellers, liners, etc.). Finally, asbestos is seen in relation to all 
kinds of pipe systems, boilers and containers. The guidelines note that asbestos in many 
Eastern European countries, and in particular in Russia, was used in ships until 1990. 

Contrary to the uses in buildings, asbestos cement was not used in significant amounts in 
ships and other means of transport and the exposure situations when removing asbestos 
from articles are estimated mainly be similar to high-exposure situations in buildings.  

5.1.3.   Exposure by waste management 

Council  Decision  No.  573  of  23  July  2001,  amending  Commission  Decision 
2000/532/EC  as  regards  the  list  of  wastes,  classifies  construction  waste  containing 
asbestos  as  a  hazardous.  This  includes  construction  waste  containing  asbestos  that  is 
embedded in the binder matrix (e.g. asbestos cement).  

Exposure may take place during collection of the waste (e.g. in waste collection points), 
handling of the waste before transport, transport to collection point and disposal facility 
and handling at disposal facility.  

The actual handling and exposure situations will be different for the different waste types 
and  depend  on  to  what  extent  the  waste  is  properly  packed  before  handed  over  to  the 
waste collection points and disposal facilities. 

Waste  containing  asbestos  should  according  to  the  AWD  be  packed  in  suitable  sealed 
packing  with  labels  indicating  that  it  contains  asbestos  (does  not  apply  to  mining 
activities). The waste is to be kept separate from other wastes so as to avoid mixing with 
other materials that would enlarge the amount of asbestos containing waste or that would 
result  in  the  asbestos  content  remaining  unknown.  In  this  process,  local  waste  disposal 
regulations are to be adhered to. 

138 Vejledning om asbest i skibe 

90 

 
 
                                                 
In  principle,  when  the  asbestos  waste  is  packed  correctly,  the  exposure  of  workers 
involved in waste management would be minimal, but available data, e.g. from the Italian 
SIREP database, indicate that some exposure still occurs.  

Exposure may, among others, take place when the waste is not packaged properly, when 
the package is broken e.g. in waste collection containers, whilst cleaning in areas where 
asbestos waste is stored and where packaging had been broken, and during landfilling of 
the asbestos-containing waste.  

For  example,  the  procedures  for  disposal  of  asbestos-containing  waste  at  local  waste 
collection centre in Denmark changed from 1 January 2021 in order to further protect the 
employees at the centres because the exposure levels had been too high with the practice 
used until 2021. 

5.1.4.   Exposure to naturally occurring asbestos  

Asbestos intentional commercial uses are banned and handling of past commercially used 
products  is  regulated,  exposure  is  possible  when  handling  other  minerals  (e.g.  talc, 
dolomite and olivine) where asbestos occurs as an impurity. Some of these minerals are 
in  granular  or  powder  form  and  they  relatively  easily  aerosolise  during  handling. 
Therefore,  attention  is  needed  in  such  industries.  In  experimental  studies  mixtures  of 
asbestos  in  dry  soils  with  asbestos  content  as  low  as  0.001%  were  able  to  produce 
airborne  respirable  asbestos  concentrations  greater  than  0.1  fibres/cm3  in  dust  clouds 
where  the  overall  respirable  dust  concentrations  were  less  than  5  mg/m3.  However, 
occurrence of asbestos as an impurity is not limited to the above granular or powder type 
minerals.  In  a  Finnish  geological  survey,  fibrous  minerals,  including  asbestos  (e.g. 
tremolite  and  actinolite),  were  detected  in  many  limestone  mines  and  rock  aggregate 
quarries.  More  recently,  airborne  asbestos  concentrations  of  10-50%  of  the  current 
national  OEL  (0.1  fibres/cm3)  have  been  measured  in  some  mines  in  Finland139. 
Compared to asbestos removal work, the awareness of potential asbestos-related risks is 
lower  in  the  mining  industry  and  related  activities;  consequently  risk  management 
guidelines were recently published140. Depending on the mineralogical characteristics of 
the bedrock and soil, situations similar to  the Finnish example may  occur also  in  other 
countries.” 

It is important to stress that 'mining' is not asbestos mining but mining of other materials 
which might contain asbestos as a naturally occurring 'impurity'. 

Exposure to naturally occurring asbestos may take place in the following activities: 

  Mining and quarrying; 
  Tunnel construction; 

139 Asbesti. Website of the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health 
140 Asbestos risk management guidelines for mines 

91 

 
 
                                                 
  Road  construction  and  similar  activities  where  raw  materials  with  asbestos 

impurities are used; and 

  Work with raw materials with asbestos impurities (stones, etc.). 

5.1.5.   Persons carrying out asbestos sampling and measurements 

Exposure  to  asbestos  may  occur  when  samples  are  taken  in  order  to  determine  the 
asbestos concentration in materials and air. When samples are taken of materials e.g. by 
use  of  a  knife,  small  amounts  of  dust  may  be  formed.  In  the  laboratory,  staff  may  be 
exposed to dust in particular when working with the samples. 

Samples of asbestos in air are taken both for monitoring of asbestos exposure and for site 
clearance check. In order to set up for the stationary sampling the person responsible for 
the sampling needs to enter the contaminated site and would be exposed for the asbestos 
is the air at the site.  

5.1.6.   Exposure situations and main NACE codes 

The  grouping  of  activities  for  the  analysis  is  summarised  in  the  table  below.  The  table 
furthermore summarises the main NACE activity codes for each group. As asbestos may 
potentially be found in any type of house or industrial installation build before asbestos 
was  banned,  the  list  of  potential  NACE  codes  would  be  quite  extensive.  Maintenance 
workers  in  all  kind  of  industries,  utility  companies,  institutions,  residential  houses,  etc. 
may  occasionally  be  exposed  to  asbestos.  The  listed  NACE  codes  represent  the  main 
NACE codes on the basis of databases of notified activities and the occupational groups 
expected to be exposed at a level above the assessed OEL options. 

Table 6: Overview of worker exposure situations and main NACE codes 

#  Exposure group  Worker population 
and 
1   Building 
construction 
- 
exposure  situations 
to 
subject 
notification 

Workers  in  asbestos  removal 
demolition 
companies, 
entrepreneur 
companies, 
craftsmen, 
companies, 
workers  in  industries  where 
asbestos occurs 

2   Building 

and 
construction 
- 
exposure  situations 
to  Article 
subject 
exemptions. 
3(3) 

Largely  craftsmen  such  as 
plumbers, 
carpenters, 
electricians  and  bricklayers, 
as  well  as  general  caretakers 
of buildings 

92 

air 

and 

Plumbing, 

Main NACE codes 
F41.20  Construction  of  residential  and 
non-residential buildings 
F43 Specialised construction activities: 
F43.11 Demolition 
F43.12 Site preparation   
F43.21 Electrical installation 
F43.22 
heat 
conditioning installation 
F43.29 Other construction installation 
F43.33 Floor and wall covering 
F43.34 Painting and glazing   
F43.39  Other  building  completion  and 
finishing   
F43.91 Roofing activities   
F43.99  Other  specialised  construction 
activities n.e.c. 
F41.20  Construction  of  residential  and 
non-residential buildings 
F43 Specialised construction activities: 
F43.22 
conditioning installation 

Plumbing, 

heat 

and 

air 

 
 
 
#  Exposure group  Worker population 

'incidental 
exposure' 

3   Building 

and 
construction 
- 
passive  exposure  in 
buildings 
4  Exposure 

to 
asbestos  in  articles: 
Trains, 
vehicles, 
vessels, aircraft and 
other  

in 

old 

office 
Workers 
buildings,  schools,  industry, 
etc.  with  ACMs  (e.g.  wear 
from ceilings) 
Workers  in  asbestos  removal 
companies,  renovation  and 
refurbishment  of  means  of 
transport, sailors, etc. 
In  general, 
would 
be 
notification 

the  activities 
to 

subject 

5  Waste  management 
remediation 

and 
activities 

involved 

Workers 
in 
transport  and  disposal  of 
asbestos-containing waste 
The activities may be subject 
to notification or exempted 

6 

and 
Mining 
quarrying 
- 
naturally  occurring 
asbestos 

Workers 
in  extraction  of 
asbestos-containing minerals 
in 
Use  of 
manufacture of rubber 

tack  powder 

7  Tunnel 

naturally 
occurring asbestos  

Workers  involved  in  tunnel 
construction 
in 
asbestos-containing rocks)  

(drilling 

8  Road  construction  - 
naturally 

partly 
occurring asbestos 

Workers  involved  in  use  of 
asbestos-containing 
construction materials 
in 
involved 
Workers 
maintenance 
roads 
of 
intentionally  added  asbestos 
in the past 
Mixing of asphalt 

93 

Main NACE codes 
F43.29 Other construction installation 
F43.33 Floor and wall covering 
F43.34 Painting and glazing   
F43.39  Other  building  completion  and 
finishing   
F43.91 Roofing activities   
F43.99  Other  specialised  construction 
activities n.e.c. 
In  principle,  a  large  number  of  NACE 
codes (see further discussion on exposure 
levels) 

C33.14 Repair of electrical equipment 
C33.15  Repair  and  maintenance  of  ships 
and boats 
C33.16 Repair and maintenance of aircraft 
and spacecraft 
C33.17  Repair  and  maintenance  of  other 
transport equipment 
G45.2  Maintenance  and  repair  of  motor 
vehicles  repair  of  motor  vehicles  and 
motorcycles 
E36.00  Water  collection,  treatment  and 
supply 
E38.11 Collection of non-hazardous waste 
E38.12 Collection of hazardous waste 
E38.22  Treatment  and  disposal  of 
hazardous waste 
E38.31 Dismantling of wrecks 
E38.32 Recovery of sorted materials 
E39.00  Remediation  activities  and  other 
waste  management  services 
(includes 
lead  paint,  and  other  toxic 
asbestos, 
material abatement) 
B08.11  Quarrying  of  ornamental  and 
building  stone,  limestone,  gypsum,  chalk 
and slate 
C22.19  Manufacture  of  other  rubber 
products 

and 

roads 

F42.11  Construction  of 
motorways 
F42.12  Construction  of  railways  and 
underground railways   
F42.13 Construction of bridges and tunnel 
F42.11  Construction  of 
and 
motorways 
F42.12  Construction  of  railways  and 
underground railways   

roads 

C23.99 Manufacture of other non-metallic 
mineral products n.e.c. (mixing of asphalt) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
#  Exposure group  Worker population 
and 
9  Sampling 

Main NACE codes 
M71.20 Technical testing and analysis 

analysis 

in 
or 

involved 
of  ACMs 

Workers 
sampling 
asbestos in air  
Not  subject  to  notification  if 
the  exposure  is  below  the 
OEL 

Sources: Eurostat. External study RPA 2021 

5.2. Exposed workforce  

5.2.1. 

 Published data from databases and the literature 

The available data on the total exposed workers in various Member States are shown in 
the table below. For comparison, the data are extrapolated to EU27 on a per capita basis.  

Table 7:  Published data on total workforce exposed to asbestos 

Country  Year(s) 

Coverage of national data (source) 

Italy 

2019 

Germany 

2017 

2010 

2017 

2020 

France 

registered 

Extrapolated  from  numbers  reported  to 
the Italian SIREP database. Includes only 
sectors  where  more  than  3  companies 
have been registered in SIREP and where 
more  than  1%  of  the  total  workforce  of 
the  sector 
in  SIREP 
is 
(Scarselli, 2020) 
Workers covered by the German asbestos 
registry (BAuA, 2020) 
All  potentially  exposed  workers  (based 
on  number  of  workers  in  the  relevant 
sectors  in  building  and  construction  - 
includes  the  majority  of  above  number) 
(BaUU, 2020) 
Extrapolated  from  self-declarations  of 
exposure to the French SUMER database 
(Vinck and Emmi, 2015) 
Estimated  number  of  workers  carrying 
out  operations  on  ACMs  -  potentially 
exposed (Lesterpt and Leray, 2017) 
Estimated  number  of  workers  who  do 
rehabilitation  work  and  can  be  exposed 
to 
exposed 
(EFBWW, stakeholder consultation). 

-  potentially 

asbestos 

2007 

Total estimated number in France (INRS 
as quoted by ANSES) 

94 

Number of 
exposed 
workers 
(rounded) in 
the Member 
States 

Extrapolated 
number of 
exposed 
workers in 
the EU27 

46 000 

248 000 

114 000 

615 000 

647  000 

3 500 000 

81 000 

602 000 

2 000 000 

14 000 000 

500 000 - 
800 000 

3 700 000 - 
5 900 000 

1 000 000 - 
2 000 000  
(of these 

7 000 000 - 
14 000 000 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country  Year(s) 

Coverage of national data (source) 

Finland 

2013-
2015 

Spain 

2016  

Poland 
** 

2013 

Romania 
** 

2006 

Bulgaria 

2012 

in 

the  Finnish 

registered 
Workers 
asbestos registry (FIOH, 2020) 
Workers  registered  in  the  PIVISTEA 
database (SANIDAD, 2018) 
Not  reported  (Quoted  by  Vencovsky  et 
al.  (2017)  with  reference  to  Central 
Register in Poland) 
Not  reported  (Quoted  by  Vencovsky  et 
al.  (2017)  with  reference to  Ministerulul 
Sănătăţii şi Familiei in Romania 
Registered  exposed  (Vangelova  et  al., 
2015) 
Estimated 
(Vangelova et al., 2015) 

potentially 

exposed 

Extrapolated 
number of 
exposed 
workers in 
the EU27 

Number of 
exposed 
workers 
(rounded) in 
the Member 
States 
900 000 in 
the building 
sector) 

1 200 

97 000 

17 645 

167 000 

1 400 

17 000 

7 300 

169 000 

1 188 

76 000 

27 000 

1 700 000 

The largest numbers of potentially exposed workers can be extrapolated from estimates 
of  total  exposed  workforce  in  France,  from  which  a  total  of  7 000 000  to  14 000 000 
potentially exposed workers in EU27 can be estimated.  

The  available  data  suggest  that  a  major  part  of  the  exposed  and  potentially  exposed 
workers is within the 'Specialised construction activities' sector. According to data from 
Eurostat, there are 2 million companies with 5 million workers in this sector in the EU27. 
Of these 5 million  workers the actual number of workers exposed at  a significant  level 
may be much smaller, but no data are available. 

5.2.2.  Workforce exposed by exposure situation 

The estimated exposed workforce by exposure situation, summarised in Table , is based 
as follows: 

Building and construction - exposure situations subject to notification. The per capita 
number of workers covered by the national asbestos registry varies by Member State with 
relatively  many  in  Germany  as  compared  to  other  Member  States.  Lowest  per  capita 
numbers are from Poland and Bulgaria. The total for Member States with data141 is about 
245,000. Not all of these are within building and construction. On basis of the available 
data  it  is  estimated  that  in  the  range  of  300,000  -  500,000  workers  in  building  and 
construction are exposed by exposure situations subject to notification. 

141 Data are available for: [names of countries] 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Building  and  construction  -  exposure  situations  subject  to  Article  3(3)  waiver  and 
'incidental' exposure. Potentially several million workers may be may occasionally be 
exposed to asbestos in exposure situations not subject to notification. The total number of 
employed workers in  the relevant  sectors in  the EU27 is  7.8 million.  It  is  worth  noting 
that  self-employed  workers  that  come  into  contact  with  asbestos  at  building  and 
construction  sites  are  expected  to  comply  with  the  OELs  under  the  Council  Directive 
92/57/EEC on temporary and mobile construction sites142.  

In addition to the 7.8 million employees, about 2.5 million self-employed are working in 
the sector, this would increase the number of workers to 10.3 million. This would be the 
upper  limit  if  all  workers  in  these  occupations  were  exposed.  Considering  the 
extrapolation  of  total  number  of  workers  potentially  to  be  exposed  in  Germany  and 
France mentioned above and assuming that only a part of the workers potentially exposed 
will actually be exposed, the total number of actually exposed in EU27 (and not included 
in above category) each year is estimated at 3.5 - 5.5 million workers. These workers will 
only  be  exposed  occasionally.  As  no  or  less  efficient  RPE  is  often  used  for  workers 
within  this  category,  the  exposure  concentrations  when  RPE  is  taken  into  account,  for 
this  category  may  not  be  much  lower  than  the  exposure  concentrations  by  activities 
subject to notification.  

Passive  exposure.  The  number  of  workers  potentially  exposed  at  very  low  levels  by 
passive  exposure  in  buildings  may  be  up  to  several  millions.  No  data  indicating  how 
many  workers  are  working  in  buildings  with  friable  ACMs  which  can  release  asbestos 
fibres to the indoor environment have been identified. Examples of asbestos released to 
the  indoor  environment  in  schools  are  common  in  the  media  at  least  in  Denmark  and 
Germany, but asbestos in other buildings has less public attention. The review estimates 
the  total  number  of  buildings  with  asbestos  in  the  UK  at  1.5  million.  Based  on  the 
available data, it cannot  be excluded, that lowering the OEL to  0.001 fibres/cm3 would 
mean that some workers in buildings with ACMs would be exposed at levels above the 
OEL.  In  order  to  have  a  first  idea  it  is  assumed  that  200,000  -  1,000,000  workers  are 
exposed at those levels estimated in section 4.3.1.  

Exposure to asbestos in articles. Limited information is available on number of workers 
exposed  to  asbestos  in  articles.  The  activities  would  typically  be  subject  to  notification 
and some of the activities would be undertaken by specialised companies. Examples are 
133 aircraft installers and repairers notified in Finland in 2014 and a case from France, 
2019  where  it  was  estimated  that  400  employees  in  more  than  20  workshops  were 
exposed to asbestos even though it was expected that asbestos had been removed from all 
SNCF trains since 1997 143. The activities may be included in a group such as 'Repair and 
installation  of  machinery  and  equipment'  where  the  French  SCOLA  database  include 

142  Council  Directive  92/57/EEC  of  24  June  1992  on  the  implementation  of  minimum  safety  and  health 
requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (eighth individual Directive within the meaning of 
Article 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A31992L0057  
143 
presence-d-amiante-sur-des-wagons-de-fret_3560829.html 

https://www.francetvinfo.fr/sante/affaires/scandale-de-l-amiante/des-salaries-de-la-sncf-denoncent-la-

of  Directive 

89/391/EEC), 

available 

(1) 

at: 

16 

96 

 
 
                                                 
notifications  from  123  companies  (INRS,  2019).  In  Madrid  Metro,  health  monitoring 
includes 1,075 active workers, but asbestos should be removed from rolling stock by the 
end  of  2019  i.e.  the  workers  are  after  2019  exposed  to  asbestos  in  buildings  and 
infrastructure. Whereas asbestos is reported to have been removed from rolling stocks of 
several  national  train  companies,  asbestos  may  still  be  present  in  private  railway 
companies.  Data  from  the  UK  and  Belgium  shows  that  asbestos  is  still  present  in  the 
rolling  stock  of  many  railway  companies  and  likely  this  is  also  the  case  in  other 
countries.  Large numbers  of vehicle mechanics  were in  the past  exposed to  asbestos in 
brakes  and  other  parts,  but  it  is  estimated  that  it  will  only  very  seldom  happen  that 
vehicle  brakes  contain  asbestos.  The  presence  of  several  companies  specialised  in 
removal of asbestos in ships indicates that a number of workers may also be involved in 
asbestos  removal  activities  in  ships.  Some  'incidental'  exposure  may  also  take  place  by 
maintenance and renovation involving ACMs which has not been identified. No data on 
other  exposure  to  asbestos  in  shipyards  has  been  identified.  On  the  basis  of  limited 
information,  it  is  roughly  estimated  that  the  number  of  workers  actually  involved  in 
activities with asbestos in articles including 'incidental' exposure is likely in the range of 
5,000 - 25,000 even the number of potentially exposed may be significantly higher.  

Waste  management.  The  data  for  waste  management  varies  considerably  between 
Member  States.  The  Italian  SIREP  database  includes  data  for  10,337  workers  in  this 
sector  (22%  of  all  registered);  the  majority  was  in  the  non-hazardous  waste  sector. 
Contrary to this, the Finnish and the German data does not specifically indicate number 
of  workers  involved  in  waste  management.  In  the  German  data,  some  activities  within 
transport industry may involve transport of waste, and in Finland waste management may 
be  included  in  the  group  of  other  activities.  The  French  SCOLA  database  includes 
notifications from 149 companies within this sector accounting for 3% of all notifications 
(INRS, 2020). A survey from Denmark from 2008 demonstrated exposure of workers on 
Danish recycling stations (waste collection points for both hazardous and non-hazardous 
waste) e.g. by sweeping around containers with asbestos-containing waste. The number 
of  recycling  stations  in  Denmark  is  364  with  several  thousand  employees.  For  the 
stakeholder consultation Hazardous Waste Europe, representing the hazardous treatment 
installations, has indicated that for the activities represented by the sector, workers would 
not  be  exposed  to  asbestos  as  they  only  handle  asbestos-containing  waste  in  closed 
packaging.  Exposure  may  typically  take  place  when  the  waste  is  packed  e.g.  in  waste 
collection points (also  for non-hazardous waste),  but  it seems  to  be common to  require 
that  all  asbestos-containing  waste  should  be  delivered  in  suitable  containment  (e.g. 
bagging or wrapping) and placed in a secure skip or container on-site. Potential exposure 
of the workers in waste collection points may happen by cleaning procedures e.g. when 
waste  is  disposed  in  improper  containment.  The  number  of  workers  that  occasionally 
may be exposed to asbestos by waste collection, transport and final disposal may be high. 
An extrapolation  of the data from  the SIREP database in  Italy would suggest  a total  of 
about  78,000  in  the  EU27.  Many  situations  in  the  waste  sector  where  workers  are 
occasionally exposed at shorter time would not be registered and e.g. not included in the 
SIREP  database.  The  total  number  of  employees  in  the  waste  sector  in  the  EU  is 
approximately  1,000,000;  of  these  46,000  in  the  hazardous  waste  sector.  No  data  are 

97 

 
 
available on the potential number of workers involved in land reclamation. Even though 
the  number  of  potentially  exposed  may  be  higher,  the  number  of  workers  exposed  at 
levels comparable to these concentrations used for the calculation of burden of disease is 
estimated at 50,000 - 200,000. 

Mining  and  quarrying  -  naturally  occurring  asbestos.  Limited  data  are  available. 
According  to  stakeholder  response  from  the  Industrial  Minerals  Association  –  Europe 
(IMA-Europe), natural presence of asbestos in the minerals extracted from the ground is 
extremely  rare  and  a  geological  curiosity.  Euromines  has  not  provided  data  for  the 
stakeholder  consultation.  In  Finland,  the  reported  number  of  exposed  workers  in  the 
sector is  about 50. Half of these are exposed at levels above 0.01 fibres/cm3. About 30 
enterprises in the valley perform quarrying and processing of the serpentinite, with more 
than 1,810 workers involved144. This illustrates that even though the occurrence is rare, 
the total  number may be significant.  Mining industry is  not  among the sectors reported 
from  the  Italian  SIREP  database  discussed  above.  In  Germany  the  number  of  exposed 
workers  in  'Raw  materials  and  chemical  industry'  is  recorded  at  1,991,  but  it  is  not 
indicated how many of these are within the mining and quarrying sector. The BG for the 
raw materials and chemical industry in Germany estimated that the German acceptance 
level of 0.01 fibres/cm3 during mining and treatment is violated in 10 out of 2 000 active 
quarries in Germany145 so safety measures have to be applied. The number of miners is 
not reported and it is not indicated how many quarries have concentrations above 0.001 
fibres/cm3.  The  French  Scolamiante  database  includes  notifications  from  29  companies 
within the mining sector accounting for 0.3% of all notifications, but it is not clear if the 
exposure  is  from  naturally  occurring  asbestos  or  from  maintenance  of  buildings  and 
equipment146. From Italy one study point at asbestos exposure in the mining of feldspar, 
but  it  has  not  been  reported  elsewhere.  Feldspar  is  widely  mined  in  the  EU  and  if 
exposure  to  low  levels  of  asbestos  take  place,  the  number  of  workers  relevant  for  the 
assessment of the lowest OEL at 0.001 fibres/cm3 could potentially be high. On the basis 
of the available data the number of workers exposed at levels comparable to the exposure 
levels reported is estimated at 5,000-30,000.  

Tunnel excavation No data are available on the number of workers exposed to asbestos 
in tunnel excavation. The reported exposure levels are low so the sector is considered not 
to contribute significantly to the total burden of disease. However, if the OEL is lowered 
to 0.001 fibres/cm3, the number of workers exposed at levels relevant for the assessment 
could  potentially  be  high.  Tunnel  excavation  in  asbestos-containing  rocks  and  use  of 
asbestos-containing  rocks  for  various  construction  works  is  demonstrated  to  lead  to 
exposure to asbestos, but no data are available to determine how common it is. For tunnel 

144 Cavallo A, Rimoldi B. Chrysotile asbestos in serpentinite quarries: a case study in Valmalenco, Central 
Alps,  Northern  Italy.  Environ  Sci  Process  Impacts.  2013  Jul;15(7):1341-50.  doi:  10.1039/c3em00193h. 
PMID: 23770928. 
145  https://www.baua.de/DE/Angebote/Publikationen/Berichte/Gd80-3.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=6 
146  INRS  (2020).  Rapport  d’activité  pour  la  période  du  1er juillet  2012  au 31 décembre  2019  –  Mesures 
d’exposition  à  l’amiante  META  réalisées  dans  le  cadre  du  décret  2012-639  du  4  mai  2012  relatif  aux 
risques d’exposition à l’amiante Institut national de recherche et de sécurité, Paris. [In French] 

98 

 
 
                                                 
excavation,  exposure  has  been  reported  from  Italy,  Austria  and  Germany.  The  total 
number of workers is roughly estimated to be in the range of 500 - 5,000.  

Road  construction  -  naturally  occurring  asbestos  and  asbestos  in  pavement  from 
past  intentional  use.  For  road  construction  no  data  are  available  for  an  estimate.  An 
investigation from 2015 included 173 personal samples at 53 road maintenance sites in 
France  with  intentionally  added  asbestos.  It  is  not  known  to  what  extent  raw  materials 
across  the  EU  contain  asbestos  at  low  levels.  As  the  exposure  concentrations  are  well 
below the current OELs in most Member States, these activities would not be subject to 
notification and data are not available from national databases. The number of workers in 
the EU27 within the sector 'Construction of roads and motorways' is 630,759. If only a 
few percent of these may be exposed to asbestos, the number of exposed workers could 
be in the range of 10,000 - 50,000. 

Sampling and analysis. Air monitoring and control is among the processes subject to the 
Article 3(3) waiver of the AWD, and consequently numbers of workers are not recorded 
in national databases. The number estimated on the basis of the Italian SIREP database is 
3,682  however  numbers  are  not  available  from  other  Member  States.  In  France,  the 
number  of  accredited  organisations  for  dust-level  control  and  analysis  is  256147  but  the 
number  of  workers  involved  in  sampling  of  asbestos  samples  is  not  reported.  On  the 
basis  of  the  data  from  Italy,  the  total  number  involved  in  sampling  and  analysis  is 
estimated at 10,000 - 25,000. 

Table 8: Estimated total workforce exposed to asbestos by exposure situation 

# 

Exposure group 

1   Building and construction 
- exposure situations 
subject to notification 
2   Building and construction 
- exposure situations 
subject to Article 3(3) 
waiver, 'incidental' 
exposure 

3   Building and construction 
- passive exposure in 
buildings 

Estimated exposed 
workforce 
300 000 - 500 000 

3 500 000 - 5 500 000 

200 000 - 1 000 000 
Potentially millions 

4  Exposure to asbestos in 

5 000 - 25 000 

articles: Trains, vehicles, 
vessels, aircraft and other  

Remark 

Exposure duration is probably 
lower than for other exposure 
groups, but no data are available to 
take this into account. 

The contribution from passive 
exposure is estimated to be 
insignificant for the total burden of 
disease and passive exposure in 
consequently excluded from the 
benefit assessment. 

Based on very limited data. 

5  Waste management  

50 000 - 200 000 

The number of workers estimated 

147 Lesterpt S, Leray S (2017). Prevention of risks caused by asbestos. A summary of the regulatory reform 
and perspectives 2009-2012-2020. 10 October 2017 – Asbestos seminar – DGT Asbestos centre. General 
Directorate for Labour, France.  

99 

 
 
 
                                                 
# 

Exposure group 

Estimated exposed 
workforce 

Remark 

6  Mining and quarrying - 
naturally occurring 
asbestos 

5 000-20 000 

7  Tunnel excavation 

500-5 000 

8  Road construction and 

10 000 - 50 000 

9 

maintenance   
Sampling and analysis 
Total (rounded) 

to be exposed at reported exposure 
levels. 
Based on very limited data. The 
number of workers estimated to be 
exposed at reported exposure 
levels. 
Based on very limited data. The 
number of workers estimated to be 
exposed at reported exposure 
levels. 

Based on very limited data. 

10 000 - 25 000 

4 100 000 - 7 300 000   Excl. potentially more at levels 

close to 0.001 fibres/cm3 

Source: External study. RPA study own calculation  

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 6: Relevant sectors & SME´s test 

1.   SME´s test 

An enterprise is  considered to  be a medium-sized, small  or micro enterprise depending 
on thresholds that have been outlined by the Commission. 

Figure 1  Categorisation of SMEs 

The  identification  of  the  presence  of  SMEs  in  the  key  sectors  relied,  to  the  maximum 
degree  possible,  on  the  use  of  NACE  codes,  to  facilitate  extraction  of  data  on  the 
proportion of SMEs from the Eurostat Structural Business Statistics (SBS) database. 

The numbers of small, medium, and large enterprises likely to have workers exposed to 
asbestos  in  the  EU  is  estimated  in  the  tables  below.  The  vast  majority  (99.32%)  of 
companies  with  exposed  workers  and  which  are  likely  be  affected  by  the  OEL  options 
are SMEs. 

Table 1: Companies involved in work with asbestos by size of company and by sector 

Exposure 
group 

Building and 
construction - 
exposure 
situations 
subject to 
notification 

Main sectors 

Total 

Small  

% 

Medium 

% 

Large  

% 

F41  -  Construction  of 
buildings 

-  Specialised 

F43 
construction activities 

Potentially 
many 
sectors  (e.g.  D35  and 
E39; SCOLA database 
lists up to 24 sectors) 

2,399 

2,381 

99.25% 

17 

0.71% 

1 

0.04% 

33,600 

33,395 

99.39% 

186 

0.55% 

19 

0.06% 

12,001 

11,901 

99.17% 

68 

0.57% 

32 

0.27% 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exposure 
group 

Building and 
construction - 
exposure 
situations 
subject to 
Article 3(3) 
waiver, 
'incidental' 
exposure 

Building and 
construction - 
passive 
exposure in 
buildings 

Exposure to 
asbestos in 
articles: 
Trains, 
vehicles, 
vessels, 
aircraft and 
other  

Waste 
management  

Mining and 
quarrying - 
naturally 
occurring 
asbestos 

Tunnel 
excavation 

Road 
construction 
and 
maintenance   

Sampling and 
analysis 

Main sectors 

Total 

Small  

% 

Medium 

% 

Large  

% 

F41  -  Construction  of 
buildings 

F43 
-  Specialised 
construction  activities 
(selected subsectors) 

Potentially 
many 
sectors  (e.g.  D35  and 
E39; SCOLA database 
lists up to 24 sectors) 

200,000 

198,428 

99.21% 

1,454 

0.73% 

118 

0.06% 

1,000,001 

993,907 

99.39% 

5,531 

0.55% 

563 

0.06% 

300,000 

297,517 

99.17% 

1,690 

0.56% 

793 

0.26% 

Many sectors 

No data 

No data 

No data 

No data 

No 
data 

No 
data 

No data 

-  Repair  and 
of 
and 
(selected 

C33 
installation 
machinery 
equipment 
subsectors) 

G45  -  Wholesale  and 
retail  trade  and  repair 
of  motor  vehicles  and 
motorcycles 

E36 - Water collection, 
treatment and supply 

Waste 
E38 
- 
collection, 
treatment 
and disposal activities; 
materials recovery 

B08.11  -  Quarrying  of 
and 
ornamental 
building 
stone, 
limestone, 
gypsum, 
chalk and slate 

F42.12  -  Construction 
of 
and 
railways 
underground railways   

F42.13  -  Construction 
of bridges and tunnel 

F42.11  -  Construction 
of 
and 
roads 
motorways 

M71.20 
testing and analysis 

Technical 

300 

296 

98.67% 

3 

1.00% 

1 

0.33% 

50 

50 

100.00% 

0 

0.00% 

0 

0.00% 

300 

279 

93.00% 

15 

5.00% 

6 

2.00% 

2,200 

2,027 

92.14% 

138 

6.27% 

35 

1.59% 

251 

242 

96.41% 

8 

3.19% 

1 

0.40% 

9 

40 

9 

100.00% 

38 

95.00% 

0 

2 

0.00% 

5.00% 

0 

0 

0.00% 

0.00% 

1,100 

1,042 

94.73% 

47 

4.27% 

11 

1.00% 

440 

434 

98.64% 

5 

1.14% 

1 

0.23% 

Summary 
(rounded) 
Source: Eurostat and RPA (2021) study own calculation 

1,550,500 

1,540,000 

99.32% 

9,000 

0.58% 

1,500 

0.10% 

102 

 
 
  
  
 
 
2.  Number of companies and employees by NACE  

An overview of number of companies and employees by NACE code for activities with 
main  risk  of  exposure  as  demonstrated  by  data  from  national  exposure  databases, 
prepared on the RPA study is presented. 

Table 2: Number of companies  and  employees  by NACE code for activities with  main 
risk of exposure  

2-digit  NACE 
category 

4-digit NACE category 

No of 
enterprises, 
EU27 

Number of workers, 
EU27 

Total 

SME  

SME in 
% of 
total 
workers 

Asbestos in building and construction 
F41 - 
Construction of 
buildings 

F41.20 
-  Construction  of 
residential  and  non-residential 
buildings 
F43.11 - Demolition 
F43.12 - Site preparation   
F43.21 - Electrical installation 
F43.22  -  Plumbing,  heat  and 
air conditioning installation 
F43.29  -  Other  construction 
installation 
F43.33 
covering 
F43.34 - Painting and glazing   
F43.39 
building 
-  Other 
completion and finishing   
F43.91 - Roofing activities   
F43.99  -  Other  specialised 
construction activities n.e.c. 

-  Floor  and  wall 

677,446 

2325033 

2031,511 

87% 

24 004 
157 756 
344 137 

70 979 
74 036 
260 598 
271 822 
1 209 416  1 049 444 

348 954 

1 063 606 

922 919 

96% 
96% 
87% 

87% 

99 570 

382 713 

380 693 

99% 

170 130 

276 082 

274 625 

240 214 

410 306 

408 141 

244 028 

225 896 

224 704 

116 843 

338 190 

318 172 

256 390 

775 515 

729 611 

99% 

99% 

99% 

94% 

94% 

D35.11 
electricity 

-  Production 

of 

144 783 

501 965 

139 380 

28% 

F43 - 
Specialised 
construction 
activities 

D35 - 
Electricity, gas, 
steam and air 
conditioning 
supply 
E39 - 
Remediation 
activities and 
other waste 
management 
services 
Asbestos in articles 

- 

Remediation 
E39.00 
activities  and  other  waste 
management services (includes 
asbestos,  lead  paint,  and  other 
toxic material abatement) 

C33.-  14  Repair  of  electrical 
equipment 
C33.15 
and 
maintenance of ships and boats 
and 
C33.16 
maintenance  of  aircraft  and 

Repair 

Repair 

- 

- 

C33 - Repair 
and installation 
of machinery 
and equipment 

103 

4 080 

31 000 

25 315 

82% 

15 299 

50 754 

37 667 

74% 

16 408 

79 094 

58 701 

74% 

2 196 

66 940 

49 680 

74% 

 
 
 
2-digit  NACE 
category 

4-digit NACE category 

spacecraft 
and 
C33.17 
maintenance of other transport 
equipment 

Repair 

- 

No of 
enterprises, 
EU27 

Number of workers, 
EU27 

Total 

SME  

SME in 
% of 
total 
workers 

3 400 

53 940 

40 032 

74% 

G45 - 
Wholesale and 
retail trade and 
repair of motor 
vehicles and 
motorcycles 
Naturally occurring asbestos and asbestos from past intentional use in asphalt 

G45.2 
repair of motor vehicles 

-  Maintenance  and 

994 874 

452 830 

958 621 

96% 

B08 - Other 
mining and 
quarrying 

F42 - Civil 
engineering 

of 
building 
gypsum, 

-  Quarrying 
and 
limestone, 

B08.11 
ornamental 
stone  
chalk and slate 
F42.11 - Construction of roads 
and motorways 
F42.12 
railways 
railways   
F42.13 
bridges and tunnel 

-  Construction  of 
underground 

-  Construction  of 

and 

Waste treatment  
E36 - Water 
collection, 
treatment and 
supply 

E36.00  -  Water  collection, 
treatment and supply 

E38 - Waste 
collection, 
treatment and 
disposal 
activities; 
materials 
recovery 

of 

-  Collection 

E38.11  -  Collection  of  non-
hazardous waste 
E38.12 
hazardous waste 
E38.22 
disposal of hazardous waste 
E38.31 
wrecks 
E38.32  -  Recovery  of  sorted 
materials 

-  Dismantling  of 

-  Treatment 

and 

5 000 

47 116 

39 771 

84% 

33 569 

630 759 

298 124 

52.70% 

2 136 

79 751 

37 693 

47% 

1 900 

36 994 

17 485 

47% 

15 000 

348 937 

134 553 

39% 

17 989 

533 581 

213 554 

40% 

1 323 

17 803 

7 126 

40% 

1 000 

28 660 

12 732 

44% 

3 097 

15 798 

10 920 

69% 

16 126 

177 712 

122 844 

69% 

Testing 
M71 - 
Architectural 
and engineering 
activities; 
technical testing 
and analysis 
Source: Eurostat’s Structural Business Statistics database. External study RPA 2021 

M71.20 - Technical testing and 
analysis 

410 396 

68 984 

249 431 

61% 

The companies certified for asbestos management may consist of: 

104 

 
 
 
 
  Companies specialised in asbestos management, where managing asbestos and ACMs 

account for a major part of the turnover of the company; 

  Companies  working  with  demolition,  renovation  and  remediation  of  buildings  and 
infrastructure where managing asbestos is a significant part of the turnover in addition 
to managing other hazardous substances such as PCB, lead, PAH, mercury, etc. 

  Companies in the building and construction sector where managing asbestos account 

for a minor part of the activities; 

  Companies  in  other  sectors  where  the  building/facility  owner's  own  staff  may  be 
exposed to asbestos by various maintenance activities. Managing asbestos account for 
a minor part of the activities. 

3.  Total estimated number of companies involved in work with ACMs by size and 

sector 

The total number of enterprises involved in work with ACMs is based on the information 
of the stakeholder consultation and public sources on number of enterprises with workers 
exposed to asbestos, whereas information on size distribution is based on the Structural 
Business  Statistics  from  Eurostat.  The  total  number  of  companies  in  the  EU  is  derived 
from the same statistics. 

Table  3:  Number  of  enterprises  involved  in  work  with  ACMs  by  size  of  enterprise  by 
sector  

  Exposure 
group 

Main sectors 

Micro 
and 
small  

Medium  Large  

Total No. 
of 
enterprises 
involved in 
work with 
ACMs 

Total No. 
of 
enterprises 
in the 
EU27 

% of total 
enterprises 
in EU27 
involved in 
work with 
ACMs 

Building 
and 
construction 
- 
exposure 
situations 
subject 
notification 

to 

Building 
and 
construction 
exposure 
- 
situations 
subject 
to 
Article  3(3) 
waiver, 
'incidental' 

F41 - 
Construction of 
buildings 

F43 - 
Specialised 
construction 
activities 
Potentially 
many sectors 
(e.g. D35 and 
E39; SCOLA 
database lists 
up to 24 
sectors) 
F41 - 
Construction of 
buildings 

F43 - 
Specialised 
construction 
activities 
(selected 
subsectors) 

1 

2 

2 381 

17 

1 

2 400 

677 446 

0.4% 

33 395 

186 

19 

33 600 

2 002 026 

1.7% 

11 901 

68 

32 

12 000 

n/a 

n/a 

198 428 

1 454 

118 

200 000 

677 446 

50% 

993 907 

5 531 

563 

1 000 000 

2 002 026 

30% 

105 

 
 
 
 
  Exposure 
group 

Main sectors 

Micro 
and 
small  

Medium  Large  

Total No. 
of 
enterprises 
involved in 
work with 
ACMs 

Total No. 
of 
enterprises 
in the 
EU27 

% of total 
enterprises 
in EU27 
involved in 
work with 
ACMs 

exposure 

Building 
and 
construction 
passive 
- 
exposure 
in 
buildings 
Exposure  to 
asbestos 
in 
articles: 
Trains, 
vehicles, 
vessels, 
aircraft  and 
other  

Waste 
management  

Mining  and 
quarrying  - 
naturally 
occurring 
asbestos 

Tunnel 
excavation 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

Potentially 
many sectors 
(e.g. D35 and 
E39; SCOLA 
database lists 
up to 24 
sectors) 

297 517 

1 690 

793 

300 000 

n/a 

n/a 

Many sectors 

No data  No data 

No 
data 

No data 

No data 

No data 

C33 - Repair 
and installation 
of machinery 
and equipment 
(selected 
subsectors) 
G45 - 
Wholesale and 
retail trade and 
repair of motor 
vehicles and 
motorcycles 

E36 - Water 
collection, 
treatment and 
supply 

E38 - Waste 
collection, 
treatment and 
disposal 
activities; 
materials 
recovery 

B08.11 - 
Quarrying of 
ornamental and 
building stone, 
limestone, 
gypsum, chalk 
and slate 

F42.12 - 
Construction of 
railways and 
underground 
railways   
F42.13 - 
Construction of 
bridges and 

296 

3 

1 

300 

37 303 

0.8% 

50 

0 

0 

50 

452 830 

0.01% 

279 

15 

6 

300 

15 000 

2.0% 

2 027 

138 

35 

2 200 

39 535 

5.6% 

242 

8 

1 

250  

5 000 

5.0% 

9 

38 

0 

2 

0 

0 

10 

2 136 

0.5% 

40 

1 900 

2.1% 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
  Exposure 
group 

Main sectors 

Micro 
and 
small  

Medium  Large  

Total No. 
of 
enterprises 
involved in 
work with 
ACMs 

Total No. 
of 
enterprises 
in the 
EU27 

% of total 
enterprises 
in EU27 
involved in 
work with 
ACMs 

Road 
construction 
and 
maintenance   
Sampling 
and analysis 

8 

9 

tunnel 

F42.11 - 
Construction of 
roads and 
motorways 
M71.20 
Technical 
testing and 
analysis 

1 042 

47 

11 

1 100 

33 569 

3.3% 

434 

5 

1 

440 

68 984 

0.6% 

Summary 
(rounded) 

1 540 0
00* 

9 000* 

1 500
* 

1 550 500
* 

* These estimates do not include companies with passively exposed workers and 
companies with workers exposed to concentrations below 0.002 fibres/cm3 
Source: Eurostat; RPA estimates 

4.  Cost/turnover ratio per sector and size of companies 

The table below sets out the average levels for turnover in the sectors where it has been 
determined workers are exposed to asbestos. 

Table 4: Average turnover for companies operating in sectors working with asbestos by 
size class, in € million 

Sector 

Average turnover per company (€ 
million) 

Small 

Medium 

F41.20 Construction of residential and non-residential 

buildings 

F43.11 Demolition 
F43.12 Site preparation   
F43.21 Electrical installation 
F43.22 Plumbing, heat and air conditioning installation 
F43.29 Other construction installation 
F43.33 Floor and wall covering 
F43.34 Painting and glazing   
F43.39 Other building completion and finishing   
F43.91 Roofing activities   
F43.99 Other specialised construction activities n.e.c. 
F42.12 Construction of railways and underground 

railways   

F42.13 Construction of bridges and tunnels 
B08.11 Quarrying of ornamental and building stone, 

limestone, gypsum, chalk and slate 

C33.14 Repair of electrical equipment 
C33.15 Repair and maintenance of ships and boats 
C33.16 Repair and maintenance of aircraft and 

0.34 

0.30 
0.20 
0.29 
0.28 
0.34 
0.13 
0.13 
0.09 
0.28 
0.33 

1.72 

0.82 

0.85 

0.19 
0.27 
3.82 

107 

Large 

269.97 

347.44 
237.70 
163.68 
156.26 
285.74 
112.77 
105.76 
74.51 
103.34 
122.84 

523.50 

249.60 

182.80 

18.22 

19.01 
13.01 
11.95 
11.41 
50.58 
19.96 
18.72 
13.19 
12.52 
14.88 

37.45 

17.86 

16.21 

8.77 
12.18 
172.56 

87.76 
121.93 
1727.48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sector 

spacecraft 

C33.17 Repair and maintenance of other transport 

equipment 

D35.11 Production of electricity 
E36.00 Water collection, treatment and supply 
E38.11 Collection of non-hazardous waste 
E38.12 Collection of hazardous waste 
E38.22 Treatment and disposal of hazardous waste 
E38.31 Dismantling of wrecks 
E38.32 Recovery of sorted materials 
E39.00 Remediation activities and other waste 

management services 

G45.2  Maintenance and repair of motor vehicles 
M71.20 Technical testing and analysis 
F42.11 Construction of roads and motorways 

Average turnover per company (€ 
million) 

Small 

Medium 

Large 

0.91 

0.38 
0.74 
0.71 
0.48 
1.53 
0.39 
1.48 

0.77 

0.22 
0.24 
0.74 

41.30 

74.60 
13.10 
10.10 
6.84 
20.38 
10.97 
41.96 

13.99 

14.97 
9.84 
15.99 

413.47 

1089.22 
99.86 
132.34 
89.65 
204.77 
88.53 
338.60 

68.23 

24.99 
104.86 
223.46 

Source: Eurostat (2018 data) and study team’s calculations 

Note:  Turnover  data  by  size  class  is  mostly  available  for  sectors  at  the  NACE  3-digit  level  as 
opposed to the 4-digit level.  Where this is the case, the share of turnover between the different 
size classes at the 4-digit level has been assumed to be the same as at the 3-digit level and then 
applied to the overall turnover level at the 4-digit level to generate estimates at sub-sector levels. 

With  available  data,  has  been  only  possible  to  estimate  costs  on  the  basis  of  exposure 
groups. For the purposes of generating estimates of the significance of the likely costs to 
be incurred with respect to turnover in the different sub-sectors, it has been assumed that 
the  costs  associated  with  each  exposure  group  will  be  the  same  for  all  the  sectors/sub-
sectors within that exposure group.   

On the basis of the cost model estimates for average cost for a company in each exposure 
group and utilising the average turnover for different sized companies in Table above, the 
following table sets out estimates of the average annual costs predicted to be incurred as 
a percentage of average annual turnover. 

The results show that at an OEL of 0.01 fibres/cm3, almost all companies of all sizes in 
the  exposure  groups  “Building  and  construction  -  exposure  situations  subject  to 
notification” and “Building and construction - exposure situations subject to Article 3(3) 
waiver, 'incidental' exposure” would have a cost/turnover ratio of less than 1%, with only 
small companies in the first group in sectors “F43.33 Floor and wall covering”, “F43.34 
Painting  and  glazing”  and  “F43.39  Other  building  completion  and  finishing”  having 
results above 1% but below 2%.  

“M71.20 Technical testing and analysis” in the exposure group “Sampling and analysis” 
shows a similar result to these groups. The only exposure group where costs in relation to 
turnover  appear  to  be  higher  than  2%  at  an  OEL  of  0.01  fibres/cm3  is  “Exposure  to 

108 

 
 
 
asbestos  in  articles:  Trains,  vehicles,  vessels,  aircraft  and  other”.  Small  enterprises  in 
sectors “C33.14 Repair of electrical equipment” and “C33.15 Repair and maintenance of 
ships and boats” show costs/turnover in the 2% to 5% category. Similarly, Sector G45.2 
Maintenance and repair of motor vehicles” also shows a cost/turnover in the same 2-5% 
category.  

With  respect  to  Sector  G45.2,  the  compliance  costs  per  company  are  expected  to  be 
lower than the costs per company calculated for that whole exposure group, which also 
includes the C33.1 sectors (repair of ships, trains etc). Workers in C33.1 sectors are much 
more  likely  to  come  into  contact  with  asbestos  then  the  ones  in  G45.2  since  in  G45.2 
workers would be most likely to come into contact with asbestos when they are repairing 
old 'veteran' cars, and number of these are limited. 

At  OELs  of  0.002  and  0.001  fibres/cm3,  more  sectors  exhibit  higher  levels  of 
costs/turnover as might be expected, and this extends to medium and large companies in 
addition to small ones. Small companies exhibiting higher cost/turnover ratios even at the 
highest  OEL  under  consideration  in  sectors  such  as  C33.14  and  C33.15  would  face 
significantly  greater  challenges  under  OELs  of  0.002  and  0.001  fibres/cm3,  with 
cost/turnover ratio results calculated between 18% and almost 30%. 

When  expressed  as  %  of  profits  or  investment,  these  costs  are  even  greater.  Although 
these costs are likely to be, to a large extent, passed on to the customers, they may result 
in  some  companies  abandoning  the  market  and  the  transfer  of  the  relevant  activities  to 
other  companies.  However,  significant  price  increases  may  result  in  consumers  putting 
off  asbestos  work  and  as  a  result  spread  the  demand  over  greater  period  of  time,  thus 
reducing  the  market  available  each  year.  This  may  result  in  a  reduction  of  firms  in  the 
market. These issues appear to be more significant for small companies. 

It is noted that for the exposure group “Building and construction  - exposure situations 
subject  to  Article  3(3)  waiver,  'incidental'  exposure”,  the  cost/turnover  ratio  remains 
below  1%,  even  at  the  strictest  OEL  across  all  company  sizes  in  all  sectors.  These 
companies will deal with asbestos occasionally but not as a major part of their operations, 
and the increase in costs associated with potential moves to lower OELs are expected to 
be significantly less than for companies in the exposure group “Building and construction 
- exposure situations subject to notification”, where work with asbestos will likely form a 
much  greater  significance  in  their  overall  portfolio.  The  corresponding  significantly 
lower cost/turnover ratios in sectors in the exposure group involving incidental exposure 
is  therefore  to  be  expected.  However,  whilst  the  cost/turnover  ratios  for  the  exposure 
group  “Building  and  construction  -  exposure  situations  subject  to  Article  3(3)  waiver, 
'incidental'  exposure”  are  lower  across  the  different  OELs  than  in  the  other  exposure 
groups, this does not necessarily mean that companies operating in these sectors will be 
unaffected by the increases in costs associated with having to comply with progressively 
lower OELs. 

109 

 
 
 
Table 5: Costs as percentage of turnover  

Exposure group 

4-digit NACE category 

specialised  construction 

F41.20 Construction of residential and non-
residential buildings 
F43.11 Demolition 
F43.12 Site preparation   
F43.21 Electrical installation 
F43.22 Plumbing, heat and air conditioning 
installation 
F43.29 Other construction installation 
F43.33 Floor and wall covering 
F43.34 Painting and glazing   
F43.39  Other  building  completion  and 
finishing   
F43.91 Roofing activities   
F43.99  Other 
activities n.e.c. 
D35.11 Production of electricity 
E39.00  Remediation  activities  and  other 
waste management services 
F41.20 Construction of residential and non-
residential buildings 
F43.11 Demolition 
F43.12 Site preparation   
F43.21 Electrical installation 
F43.22 Plumbing, heat and air conditioning 
installation 
F43.29 Other construction installation 
F43.33 Floor and wall covering 
F43.34 Painting and glazing   
F43.39  Other  building  completion  and 
finishing   
F43.91 Roofing activities   
F43.99  Other 
activities n.e.c. 
D35.11 Production of electricity 

specialised  construction 

Building  and  construction 
- 
situations 
subject to notification 

exposure 

exposure 

Building  and  construction 
- 
situations 
to  Article  3(3) 
subject 
waiver, 
'incidental' 
exposure 

110 

0.001 fibres/cm3 
Small  Medium  Large 

Cost as a % of turnover 
0.002 fibres/cm3 
Small  Medium  Large 

0.01 fibres/cm3 
Small  Medium  Large 

3.42% 

3.95% 
5.78% 
4.02% 

4.21% 

3.49% 
8.83% 
9.42% 

13.37% 

4.21% 

3.54% 

3.09% 

1.54% 

0.27% 

0.31% 
0.45% 
0.31% 

0.33% 

0.27% 
0.69% 
0.73% 

1.04% 

0.33% 

0.28% 

0.24% 

0.32% 

0.31% 
0.45% 
0.49% 

0.52% 

0.12% 
0.30% 
0.31% 

0.45% 

0.47% 

0.40% 

0.08% 

0.42% 

0.03% 

0.02% 
0.04% 
0.04% 

0.04% 

0.01% 
0.02% 
0.02% 

0.03% 

0.04% 

0.03% 

0.01% 

0.09% 

0.07% 
0.10% 
0.14% 

0.15% 

0.08% 
0.21% 
0.22% 

0.32% 

0.23% 

0.19% 

0.02% 

0.35% 

0.01% 

0.01% 
0.01% 
0.01% 

0.01% 

0.01% 
0.02% 
0.02% 

0.02% 

0.02% 

0.01% 

0.002% 

3.06% 

3.54% 
5.18% 
3.60% 

3.78% 

3.12% 
7.91% 
8.44% 

11.98% 

3.78% 

3.18% 

2.77% 

1.38% 

0.21% 

0.24% 
0.35% 
0.24% 

0.25% 

0.21% 
0.53% 
0.56% 

0.80% 

0.25% 

0.21% 

0.19% 

0.29% 

0.28% 
0.41% 
0.44% 

0.46% 

0.10% 
0.26% 
0.28% 

0.40% 

0.42% 

0.35% 

0.07% 

0.38% 

0.02% 

0.02% 
0.03% 
0.03% 

0.03% 

0.01% 
0.02% 
0.02% 

0.03% 

0.03% 

0.02% 

0.08% 

0.06% 
0.09% 
0.13% 

0.14% 

0.07% 
0.19% 
0.20% 

0.28% 

0.20% 

0.17% 

0.02% 

0.31% 

0.01% 

0.004% 
0.01% 
0.01% 

0.01% 

0.005% 
0.01% 
0.01% 

0.02% 

0.01% 

0.01% 

0.005% 

0.001% 

0.44% 

0.51% 
0.74% 
0.52% 

0.54% 

0.45% 
1.14% 
1.21% 

1.72% 

0.54% 

0.46% 

0.40% 

0.20% 

0.09% 

0.10% 
0.14% 
0.10% 

0.11% 

0.09% 
0.22% 
0.24% 

0.33% 

0.11% 

0.09% 

0.08% 

0.04% 

0.04% 
0.06% 
0.06% 

0.07% 

0.01% 
0.04% 
0.04% 

0.06% 

0.06% 

0.05% 

0.01% 

0.05% 

0.01% 

0.01% 
0.01% 
0.01% 

0.01% 

0.003% 
0.01% 
0.01% 

0.01% 

0.01% 

0.01% 

0.002% 

0.01% 

0.01% 
0.01% 
0.02% 

0.02% 

0.01% 
0.03% 
0.03% 

0.04% 

0.03% 

0.02% 

0.003% 

0.04% 

0.002% 

0.002% 
0.002% 
0.004% 

0.004% 

0.002% 
0.01% 
0.01% 

0.01% 

0.01% 

0.005% 

0.001% 

 
 
Exposure group 

4-digit NACE category 

E39.00  Remediation  activities  and  other 
waste management services  

0.001 fibres/cm3 
Small  Medium  Large 

Cost as a % of turnover 
0.002 fibres/cm3 
Small  Medium  Large 

0.01 fibres/cm3 
Small  Medium  Large 

0.12% 

0.03% 

0.03% 

0.09% 

0.03% 

0.02% 

0.04% 

0.01% 

0.01% 

Building  and  construction 
-  passive  exposure 
in 
buildings 

Exposure  to  asbestos  in 
articles:  Trains,  vehicles, 
vessels, aircraft and other  

Waste management 

Mining  and  quarrying  - 
naturally 
occurring 
asbestos 

Tunnel excavation 

and 

construction 

Road 
maintenance 
Sampling and analysis 
Key: 

Many sectors 

No data 

No data 

No data 

No data 

No data 

No data 

No data 

No data 

No data 

C33.14 Repair of electrical equipment 
C33.15  Repair  and  maintenance  of  ships 
and boats 
C33.16  Repair  and  maintenance  of  aircraft 
and spacecraft 
C33.17  Repair  and  maintenance  of  other 
transport equipment 
G45.2  Maintenance  and  repair  of  motor 
vehicles 
E36.00  Water  collection,  treatment  and 
supply 
E38.11 Collection of non-hazardous waste 
E38.12 Collection of hazardous waste 
E38.22  Treatment 
disposal 
hazardous waste 
E38.31 Dismantling of wrecks 
E38.32 Recovery of sorted materials 
B08.11  -  Quarrying  of  ornamental  and 
building  stone,  limestone,  gypsum,  chalk 
and slate 
F42.12  -  Construction  of  railways  and 
underground railways   
F42.13  -  Construction  of  bridges  and 
tunnels 
F42.11 
motorways 
M71.20 Technical testing and analysis 

-  Construction  of 

roads  and 

and 

of 

28.50% 

20.52% 

8.51% 

6.13% 

2.36% 

1.70% 

25.60% 

18.42% 

7.64% 

5.50% 

2.12% 

1.53% 

3.93% 

2.83% 

1.17% 

0.84% 

0.33% 

0.23% 

1.45% 

0.43% 

0.12% 

1.30% 

0.39% 

0.11% 

0.20% 

0.06% 

0.02% 

6.05% 

1.81% 

0.50% 

5.43% 

1.62% 

0.45% 

0.83% 

0.25% 

0.07% 

24.60% 

4.98% 

8.29% 

22.09% 

4.47% 

7.45% 

3.39% 

0.69% 

1.14% 

2.82% 

2.95% 
4.35% 

1.37% 

5.39% 
1.41% 

2.15% 

2.79% 
4.12% 

1.38% 

2.57% 
0.67% 

0.78% 

0.59% 
0.87% 

0.38% 

0.88% 
0.23% 

2.50% 

2.61% 
3.85% 

1.21% 

4.77% 
1.25% 

1.91% 

2.47% 
3.65% 

1.23% 

2.28% 
0.59% 

0.69% 

0.52% 
0.77% 

0.34% 

0.78% 
0.20% 

0.36% 

0.38% 
0.56% 

0.18% 

0.69% 
0.18% 

0.28% 

0.36% 
0.53% 

0.18% 

0.33% 
0.09% 

0.10% 

0.08% 
0.11% 

0.05% 

0.11% 
0.03% 

2.88% 

2.03% 

0.50% 

2.55% 

1.80% 

0.44% 

0.43% 

0.31% 

0.08% 

0.91% 

0.56% 

0.11% 

0.80% 

0.50% 

0.10% 

0.17% 

0.10% 

0.02% 

1.90% 

1.18% 

0.23% 

1.68% 

1.04% 

0.21% 

0.35% 

0.22% 

0.04% 

0.78% 

11.57% 

0.48% 

3.74% 

0.10% 

0.98% 

0.69% 

10.19% 

0.43% 

3.29% 

0.08% 

0.86% 

0.16% 

1.66% 

0.10% 

0.54% 

0.02% 

0.14% 

< 1%   No colour 

1-2% 

2-5% 

5-10% 

>10% 

Source: External study. RPA 2021 

111 

 
 
Annex 7: Existing Guidelines and voluntary industry 
initiatives 

A number of guidelines have been published by the EU Commission, national authorities 
or research institutions and industry stakeholders. Examples of guidelines are listed in the 
table  below  on  the  basis  of  responses  to  the  stakeholder  consultation  and  literature 
search. The list is not exhaustive, most Member States would have guidelines at different 
levels.  

The guidelines can be grouped into two groups. Exemplified with France, the Ministry of 
labour  has  issued  instructions  specifying  which  RMMs  would  be  required  in  order  to 
meet the legislation while the French National Research and Safety Institute (INRS) has 
published guidelines describing in detail all steps in managing ACMs with more specific 
information on the different RMMs.  

As part of the stakeholder consultation contact has been established to Dutch experts in 
order  to  understand  to  what  extent  guidelines  are  available  and  has  been  updated  to 
reflect  the  lowering  of  the  Dutch  OEL  to  0.002  fibres/cm3.  There  are  no  common 
guidelines,  but  guidelines  were  developed  on  how  to  assess  that  a  specific  working 
method  is  safe.  Parties  can  decide  to  develop  a  safe  working  method  to  be  applied  at 
nationwide level, which would result in having to apply a less strict safety regime. These 
safe  working  methods  often  include  the  application  of  some  type  of  control  measures 
(like  a  wetting  agent).  For  such  safe  working  methods  to  be  generally  available  these 
have to be evaluated and approved by a specific committee that has been installed by the 
Ministry  of  Social  Affairs  and  Employability.  Currently  a  limited  number  of  such  safe 
working  methods  are  now  generally  available  in  the  Netherlands  (Spaan,  personal 
communication 2021).  

Existing  voluntary  industry  initiatives,  from  collected  information  via  the  stakeholder 
consultation  and  literature  search,  concern  mainly  the  development  of  guidelines  for 
good practice for working with asbestos.  

Examples of guidelines for management of asbestos in the workplace  

Title 
EU level 
A  practical  guide  on  best  practice  to  prevent  or 
minimise asbestos risks in work that involves (or 
may  involve)  asbestos:  for  the  employer,  the 
workers and the labour inspector. 

Practical  guidelines  for  the  information  and 
training  of  workers 
involved  with  asbestos 
removal or maintenance work.  

Published by (year) 

Issued  by  the  Senior  Labour  Inspectors 
Committee  (SLIC)  for  use  in  the  2006 
asbestos  campaign  undertaken  throughout 
Europe  and  published  by  the  European 
Commission (undated) 
European Commission (2012) 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
Title 
National  authorities  or  Occupational  Health 
and Safety institutes 
Asbestos-containing  materials 
in 
workplaces.  Practical  guidelines  on  ACM 
management and abatement 
Asbestos risk management guidelines for mines 

(ACMs) 

potenziell 

Sanierungs- 

asbesthaltigen 
Tätigkeiten  mit 
daraus 
und 
Rohstoffen 
mineralischen 
hergestellten  Gemischen  und  Erzeugnisse.  TRGS 
517. [mandatory] 
Technische  Regeln  für  Gefahrstoffe  Asbest: 
oder 
Abbruch-, 
Instandhaltungsarbeiten. TRGS 519. [mandatory] 
Instruction DGT/CT2 
du 
l’application  du 
16 octobre 2015  concernant 
risques 
décret  du  29 juin 2015 relatif 
d’exposition à l’amiante [mandatory] 
Exposition 
travaux 
l’amiante  dans 
d’entretien  et  de  maintenance.  Guide  de 
prévention.  
Situations de travail exposant à l'amiante 

no 2015/238 

aux 

les 

à 

Para  la  evaluación  y  prevención  de  los  riesgos 
relacionados con la exposición al amianto 
Asbestos. Health and Safety at Workplaces.  

Varno delo zazbestom. [Safe work with asbestos] 
[mandatory] 

Arbetsmiljöverkets  föreskrifter  om  asbest  och 
allmänna  råd  om  tillämpningen  av  föreskrifterna 
[The  Swedish  Work  Environment  Authority's 
regulations on asbestos and general advice on the 
application of the regulations] [mandatory] 
Asbest.  Regler  for  ethvert  arbejde  med  asbest  og 
herunder  reparation,  vedligeholdelse  og  fjernelse 
af asbestholdige materialer. [Mandatory] 
Ασφάλεια  και  Υγεία  στην  Εργασία.  Διεθνείς 
Συμβάσεις  [Occupational  Safety  and  Health. 
Asbestos] 
Inventaire d’amiante et programme de gestion 

за 

на 
Препоръки 
работещите  при 
азбест 
[Recommendations  for  protecting  the  health  of 

опазване 
експозиция  на 

здравето 

Published by (year) 

Health and Safety Authority, Ireland (HSA, 
2013) 

Finnish  Institute  of  Occupational  Health 
(Kähkönen et al., 2019) 
Federal  Institute  for  Occupational  Safety 
and Health, Germany (BAuA, 2015) 

Federal  Institute  for  Occupational  Safety 
and Health, Germany (BAuA, 2019) 

Ministère  du  Travail,  de  L’emploi,  de  la 
Formation  Professionnelle  et  du  Dialogue 
Social, France MTEFR (2015). 

Institut  National  de  Recherche  et  de 
Securité, France (INRS, 2019a) 

Institut  National  de  Recherche  et  de 
Securité, France (INRS, 2007) 
Instituto  Nacional  de  Seguridad  e  Higiene 
en el Trabajo (INSHT, 2006) 
Occupational  Health  and  Safety  Authority, 
Malta (OSHA, 2016) 
Ministrstvo  za  delo,  druûino  in  socialne 
zadeve,  Urad  RS  za  varnost  in  zdravje  pri 
delu, Slovenia (Vrečko, 2002) 
Arbetsmilöverket, 
(Arbetsmiljöverket, 2019) 

Sweden 

Arbejdstilsynet, Denmark 

Website 
Inspection, Cyprus148 

of  Department 

of  Labour 

Service  Public  Federal  Emploi,  Travail  et 
(SPF 
Concertation  Sociale,  Belgium 
Emploi, 2020) 
Website  of  Ministry  of  Health,  National 
Center  of  Public  Health  and  Analyses, 
Bulgaria 149 

148 
http://www.mlsi.gov.cy/mlsi/dli/dliup.nsf/All/2E24CA4412E799C9C2257DD6003AC247?OpenDocument
&highlight=asbestos 

113 

 
 
 
                                                 
Title 
workers by exposure to asbestos] 
Industry stakeholders 
Information  modules  Asbestos 
information modules) 

(a 

list  of 

Available in Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, English, 
French,  German,  Hungarian,  Italian,  Latvian 
Lithuanian, 
Slovenian, 
Polish,  Romanian, 
Spanish, and Turkish 
EFBWW  Trade  Union  Guide  on  using  Asbestos 
Registries  
Guía sobre amianto. Visión general y proceso de 
descontaminación (desamiantado) 

Asbest. Den grønne asbestvejledning  
og  beskrivelse  for  udførelse  af  asbestsanering 
[Asbestos.  The  green  asbestos  guide  and 
description for performing asbestos remediation] 
Vejledning  om  asbest  i  skibe  [Guidelines  on 
asbestos in ships] 
Asbesthuset  [The  asbestos  house. 
guideline] https://asbest-huset.dk/ 

interactive 

Source: External study. RPA 2021 

Published by (year) 

European  Construction  Industry  Federation 
(FIEC)  and  European  Federation  of 
Building  and  Woodworkers  (EFBWW  or 
FETBB),  available  at  the  websites  of 
EFBWW and FIEC 150 

española 

-  Asociación 

European  Federation  of  Building  and 
Woodworkers (EFBWW, 2018) 
AEDED 
de 
demolición,  descontaminación,  corte  y 
perforación.  Prepared  in  cooperation  with 
the  European  Demolition  Association 
(EDA) 
a  number  of  national 
associations (AEDED, 2020) 
Danish  Construction  Association  (Dansk 
Byggeri, 2019) 

and 

The Industry's Work Environment Council, 
Denmark (I-bar 2010) 
Social  partners  within  the  building  and 
construction sector, Denmark 

149 https://ncpha.government.bg/uploads/pages/3001/Azbestos-Prot_Workers.pdf 
150 https://www.fiec.eu/our-projects/completed-projetcs/information-modules-asbestos 

114 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                 
Annex 8: Measurement Method 

At present, PCM is not considered a state of the art measurement method for asbestos in 
the  work  environment  anymore.  In  addition  to  its  inability  to  speciate  fibre  types  it 
cannot detect fibres thinner than about 0.2 µm. Nowadays measurement techniques based 
on  electron  microscopy  (EM)  have  been  introduced.  These  methods  can  detect  thinner 
and shorter fibres than PCM and are also equipped with analysers able to characterise the 
elemental composition or crystal structure of the fibres. 

PCM  with  a  practical  limit  of  quantification  (LOQ)151  at  approx.  0.005  -  0.01 
fibres/cm3152, seems not feasible for monitoring compliance with the OEL options lower 
than  0.01  fibres/cm3.  Although  still  possible,  it  will  neither  be  the  ideal  method  for 
monitoring compliance for OEL option equal to 0.01 fibres/cm3153

.

The  electronic  microscopy  methods  are,  according  to  the  scientific  report  done  by 
ECHA, intended to be used as a complement of the PCM methods. TEM is a much more 
sensitive method than PCM as its high resolution allows objects with a diameter smaller 
than 0.01μm to be observed and fibres with a length exceeding 0.5μm to be counted. The 
quantitative  working  range  is  0.04  to  0.5  fibres/cm3  for  a  1000 L  air  sample  while  the 
limit of detection (LOD), depending on sample volume and quantity of interfering dust is 
<0.01 fibres/cm3 for atmospheres  free of interferences.  A  LOD of 0.001  fibres/cm3 can 
be  achieved  when  levels  of  airborne  dust  are  around  10  µg/m3  (e.g.  clean  rural 
environment),  but  extremely  challenging  to  achieve  in  an  urban  or  construction 
environment154.  For  SEM  LOD  is  estimated  at  0.004  fibres/cm3  for  a  2-hour  sample  at 
the maximum flow rate. 

The  French  Agency  for  Environmental  and  Occupational  Health  Safety  (AFSSET) 
155indicates  a  LOQ  for  PCM  method  equal  to  0.01  f/cm3  and  a  LOQ  equal  to  0.0025 
f/cm3 for the TEM methods. It refers yet that The LOQ for SEM is bigger than the one 
for TEM.  

The findings from the external study highlight that likely more than half of the asbestos 
analysis for compliance control today is undertaken by EM methods. It is also mentioned 
that  some  uncertainties  regarding  the  applicability  of  the  methods  as  applied  by 
commercial laboratories today for compliance control at the options of 0.002 and 0.001 
fibres/cm3 have been raised but that based on the Dutch experience, measuring down to 
0.002  fibres/cm3  is  possible  by  use  of  scanning  electron  microscopy with  energy 
dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM/EDXA). 

151  The  limit  of  quantification  is  in  practice  determined  by  the  “background  noise”  of  (non-asbestos) 
fibrous components that are always present in the air 
152 External study. See footnote 7 
153 For the  screening tests, ideally an analytical  method  with  a  limit of  quantification (LOQ) at 0.1  - 0.2 
times  the  OEL  is  required;  otherwise,  it  will  be  necessary  to  undertake  more  tests,  and  the  costs  of 
monitoring increase. 
154  Example  NFX  43-050:  1996  method  (AFNOR,  1996).  ECHA/RAC/  A77-O-0000006981-66-01/F  10 
June 2021 
155 Asbestos fibres: assessment  of the  health effects and  methods used to  measure exposure levels in the 
workplace.  Available at:  https://www.anses.fr/en/system/files/VLEP2005et9900RaEN_0.pdf 

115