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 at 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  COM(2022) 489 final 2022/0298 (COD)  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 at work {SEC(2022) 342 final} - {SWD(2022) 310 final} - {SWD(2022) 311 final} - {SWD(2022) 312 final}  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

• 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

Reasons for and objectives of the proposal 

One of the objectives of the European Union (EU) is to  promote well-being and sustainable 
development,  based  on  a  highly  competitive  social  market  economy,  aiming  at  full 
employment  and  social  progress1.  The  right  of  every  worker  to  working  conditions  that 
respect  their  health,  safety  and  dignity  is  enshrined  in  Article  31  of  the  Charter  of 
Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union.  Principle  10  of  the  European  Pillar  of  Social 
Rights2  states  that  workers  have  the  right  to  a  high  level  of  protection  of  their  health  and 
safety at work.  

In her political guidelines, President von der Leyen committed to putting forward a European 
plan  to  fight  cancer,  to  support  Member  States  in  improving  cancer  control  and  care3.  This 
proposal delivers on the commitment made in Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan4, the European 
Pillar  of  Social  Rights  Action  Plan  and  the  EU  strategic  framework  on  health  and  safety  at 
work  for  2021-20275  to  further  reduce  workers’  exposure  to  asbestos,  which  is  a  highly 
dangerous  carcinogenic  substance.  This  proposal,  highlighted  as  one  of  the  priorities  under 
action 3  - A stronger economy, social justice and jobs  -  of the Conference on the  Future of 
Europe (CoFE) is a key deliverable of the 2022 Commission work programme6 

Protecting  workers  against  exposure  to  asbestos  is  also  a  key  priority  for  the  European 
Parliament.  In  its  resolution  of  October  20217,  the  European  Parliament  set  out  an 
encompassing approach to dealing with legacy asbestos issues. In response, the Commission 
has  adopted  its  Communication  on  working  towards  an  asbestos-free  future:  a  European 
approach  to  addressing  the  health  risks  of  asbestos8.  It  addresses  the  public-health  risk 
stemming from asbestos in a holistic manner, presenting EU-level measures to tackle asbestos 
throughout its life cycle. 

Occupational cancer is the first cause of work-related deaths in the EU9. It is primarily caused 
by  exposure  to  carcinogenic  substances  such  as  asbestos.  As  much  as  78%  of  occupational 
cancers  recognised  in  the  Member  States  are  related  to  asbestos10.  When  inhaled,  airborne 
asbestos fibres can lead, for example, to mesothelioma11 and lung cancer, with an average lag 
between exposure and the first signs of disease of 30 years. Therefore, cancers may develop 
decades  after  occupational  exposure,  including  when  workers  have  retired  from  work.  This 
makes  it  difficult  to  trace  past  exposures  and  identify  a  causal  link  between  work-related 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

6 

7 
8 
9 

10 
11 

Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union. 
https://op.europa.eu/webpub/empl/european-pillar-of-social-rights/en/ 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/political-guidelines-next-commission_en_0.pdf 
https://ec.europa.eu/health/system/files/2022-02/eu_cancer-plan_en_0.pdf 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021DC0323&qid=1626089672913#PP1Contents 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar%3A9fb5131e-30e9-11ec-bd8e-
01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF  
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0427_EN.html  
[cross-reference to be added upon adoption] 
With  a  share  of  52%,  occupational  cancer  is  the  first  cause  of  work-related  deaths  in  the  EU,  before 
circulatory illnesses (24%), injuries (2%) and all other causes (22%) (2017 data, thus covering the EU 
and the United Kingdom (https://visualisation.osha.europa.eu/osh-costs#!/)). 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/experimental-statistics/european-occupational-diseases-statistics  
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). 

EN 

1 

  EN 

                                                 
exposure  and  cancers.  For  this  reason,  the  number  of  people  affected  by  asbestos-related 
occupational diseases may be underestimated. 

The progressive ban on the use of asbestos in the EU began in 1988 with the prohibition of 
crocidolite  (also  called  blue  asbestos)12  and  was  subsequently  extended  to  cover  other 
asbestos-containing materials. Since 2005, all forms of asbestos are banned in the EU13.  

The first EU action aimed at protecting workers from the specific risks of workplace exposure 
to  asbestos  dates  back  to  1983,  when  Council  Directive  83/477/EEC14  was  adopted.  This 
Directive has been substantially amended several times until its most recent codified version, 
Directive 2009/148/EC (the Asbestos at Work Directive (AWD))15. In addition, since asbestos 
is  a  carcinogenic  substance,  the  provisions  laid  down  in  Directive  2004/37/EC  on  the 
protection  of  workers  from  the  risks  related  to  exposure  to  carcinogens,  mutagens  or 
reprotoxic  substances  at  work16  (the  Carcinogens,  Mutagens  and  Reprotoxic  Substances 
Directive  (CMRD))  apply  whenever  they  are  more  favourable  to  the  health  and  safety  of 
workers.  This  includes  an  exposure-minimisation  requirement  since  it  has  not  yet  been 
possible to identify an exposure threshold below which exposure to asbestos does not involve 
a cancer risk.  Therefore, and in  line with  the CMRD, employers should ensure that the risk 
related to the exposure of workers to asbestos at the workplace is reduced to a minimum and 
in any case to as low a level as is technically possible. 

The  AWD  protects  workers  against  risks  to  their  health  arising  or  likely  to  arise  from 
exposure  to  asbestos  at  work,  including  by  preventing  such  risks.  Under  the  AWD,  for  all 
activities  in  which  workers  are  or  may  be  exposed  to  dust  from  asbestos  or  materials 
containing asbestos, exposure must be reduced to a minimum and in any case below the fixed 
binding  occupational-exposure  limit  (OEL)  of  0.1  fibres/cm3  as  an  8-hour  time-weighted 
average  (TWA).  This  includes  situations  in  which  workers  re-enter  the  workplace  after 
carrying out activities such as demolition, asbestos removal work, repair and maintenance in 
respect of which it is foreseeable that the set limit value will be exceeded despite the use of 
technical preventive measures for limiting asbestos-in-air concentrations. If the limit value is 
exceeded,  the  reasons  must  be  identified  and  the  employer  must  take  appropriate  risk-
management  measures  (RMMs)  to  remedy  the  situation  before  work  restarts.  It  is  also 
specified  that  if  the  OEL  cannot  be  observed  by  other  means,  employers  must  provide 
workers  with  appropriate  respiratory  and  other  personal  protective  equipment.  In  addition, 
strict obligations in terms of protection, planning and training apply to employers.  

While  extracting,  manufacturing  and  processing  asbestos  is  prohibited,  a  substantial  legacy 
problem exists across the EU, representing a public and occupational health challenge, since 

12 

13 

14 
15 

16 

Council Directive 83/478/EEC of 19 September 1983 amending for the fifth time  (asbestos) 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 
(OJ L 263, 24.9.1983, p. 33). 
The  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). This  Directive  was  repealed  by  the  REACH  Regulation  (Regulation  (EC)  No 
1907/2006 (OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1), see its Annex XVII, entry 6, on asbestos fibres). 
OJ L 263, 24.9.1983, p. 25. 
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). 
OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 50 (Article 1(4)). 

EN 

2 

  EN 

                                                 
asbestos is still present in many older buildings, which are likely to be renovated, adapted or 
demolished  over  the  upcoming  years.  The  renovation  wave  strategy17  under  the  European 
Green Deal, notably aims at accelerating the pace of building renovations across the EU. As 
the risk of exposure to asbestos occurs mainly during renovation, maintenance and demolition 
works it is important to reinforce preventive measures to further limit the exposure to asbestos 
of workers. 

It is estimated that currently 4.1 to 7.3 million workers are exposed to asbestos18. The risk of 
this  exposure  is  mostly  linked  to  the  handling  of  asbestos-containing  materials  and  the 
dispersion  of  asbestos  fibres  during  construction  works,  such  as  during  renovation, 
maintenance,  repair  and  demolition.  Of  all  workers  exposed  to  asbestos,  97%  work  in  the 
construction  sector,  including  related  occupations  such  as  roofing,  plumbing,  carpentry  or 
floor-laying.  Exposure  to  asbestos  is  also  present  in  other  economic  sectors,  e.g.  waste 
management  (2%  of  all  exposed  workers),  mining  and  quarrying,  firefighting,  tunnel 
excavation  and  maintenance,  and  asbestos  sampling  and  analysis.  There  is  also  a  risk  of 
exposure when ships, drilling platforms, and transport means such as trains and aircraft with 
asbestos insulation are repaired or dismantled.  

To ensure that measures for protecting workers from exposure to asbestos are as effective as 
possible, the AWD needs to be kept up to date with new scientific knowledge developed since 
its last substantial revision.  

The current  OEL of 0.1 fibres/cm3 in the AWD was set in 2003 based on the scientific and 
technological  knowledge  available  at  that  time.  The  AWD  includes  minimum  requirements 
that  should  be  reviewed  on  the  basis  of  experience  acquired  and  of  the  development  of 
technology in this area. Following the latest scientific and technological developments, there 
is scope to improve the protection of workers exposed to asbestos and thus further reduce the 
probability for workers to contract  asbestos-related diseases.  Moreover, four Member States 
have already introduced stricter OELs in their national legislation19. 

The proposed amendment of the AWD will make the OEL under the Directive more effective 
by  updating  it  on  the  basis  of  the  latest  available  scientific  evidence.  The  proposed 
amendment  is  supported  by  the  latest  in-depth  evaluation  of  the  AWD  (2017  ex  post 
evaluation  of  the  EU  occupational  safety  and  health  (OSH)  Directives20)  and  by  the  most 
recent assessment of the implementation of the EU OSH Directives, covering the period from 
2013 to 2017. The latest in-depth evaluation of the AWD concluded that the  AWD remains 
highly relevant  and that  to  increase its effectiveness  in  light  of scientific  progress,  lowering 
the OEL set in the AWD should be considered.  

The  Commission  asked  the  Committee  for  Risk  Assessment  (RAC)  of  the  European 
Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to assess the scientific relevance of the current OEL for asbestos, 
to inform the preparation of the proposal to amend the AWD. The RAC’s scientific opinion 

17 

18 

19 
20 

Commission Communication  A Renovation Wave for Europe  – greening our buildings, creating jobs, 
improving lives (COM(2020) 662 final). 
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): 
2021, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/981554. 
Germany, Denmark, France and the Netherlands. 
SWD(2017) 10 final. 

Publications 

asbestos, 

Office, 

report 

final 

for 

EN 

3 

  EN 

                                                 
was adopted in June 202121. It confirmed that asbestos does not have a safe exposure level, 
which means  that  any exposure to  asbestos may eventually lead to  disease. Thus, a  relation 
between  exposure  levels  and  the  associated  risk  (exposure-risk  relationship,  ERR)  was 
derived, expressing the excess risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma mortality (combined) as 
a function of the fibre concentration in the air. In addition, the tripartite Advisory Committee 
on Safety and Health at Work (ACSH) unanimously agreed on the need to lower the current 
OEL. 

Reducing  exposure  to  asbestos  at  the  workplace  by  lowering  the  EU-wide  OEL  effectively 
helps prevent cancer cases and deaths. Consequently, it improves the protection of workers by 
increasing  the  length,  quality  and  productivity  of  the  working  lives  of  EU  workers  and 
ensuring a similar minimum level of protection across the EU. It also creates a level playing 
field  for  businesses,  as  it  prevents  companies  that  do  not  take  appropriate  measures  from 
acquiring a competitive advantage over those who do.  

If  no  action  is  taken  and  due  to  the  latency  period  of  the  consequences  of  ineffective 
prevention (i.e. the health effects), businesses are expected to bear higher costs in the future 
and to suffer from reduced productivity due to absenteeism and loss of expertise. For Member 
States, this would lead to increased social-security costs (e.g. due to higher costs for medical 
treatment and incapacity benefits) and missed tax revenues.  

Revising the OEL under the AWD will lead to a greater harmonisation of limit values across 
the  EU,  which  is  expected  to  level  the  playing  field  for  businesses.  Companies  willing  to 
operate  in  multiple  Member  States  will  further  benefit  from  streamlined  applicable  limit 
values. This may result in savings,  as common solutions can be adopted across facilities, as 
opposed to having to design site-specific solutions to meet various OEL requirements. 

EU-level action will also create fairer conditions for posted, cross-border and mobile workers 
exposed  to  asbestos  in  the  construction  sector  (which  has  a  significant  number  of  posted 
workers moving from one site to another, often in multiple Member States) and also a fairer 
distribution of healthcare costs across Member States. 

• 

Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area 

This initiative is in line with the European Pillar of Social Rights, in particular its principle 10 
on  the  right  to  a  healthy,  safe  and  well-adapted  work  environment,  and  its  action  plan. 
Revising the OEL for asbestos helps achieve a high level of protection of workers’ health and 
safety. 

This  initiative  also  builds  on  the  commitment  the  Commission  made  in  the  EU  strategic 
framework on health and safety at work for 2021-2027 and Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan to 
further lower the OEL for asbestos in the AWD in 2022. 

Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage 
improvements in the safety and health of workers at work22 (the ‘OSH Framework Directive’) 
and the CMRD have no bearing on more stringent or specific rules under the AWD. 

21 

22 

RAC, Opinion on scientific evaluation of occupational exposure limits for Asbestos (ECHA/RAC/A77-
O-0000006981-66-01/F). 
OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1. 

EN 

4 

  EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Consistency with other Union policies 

• 
The  REACH  Regulation23  (in  force  since  2007)  created,  among  others,  two  distinct  EU 
regulatory approaches: restrictions and authorisations. 

Since 1988, the placing  on the market  and use of crocidolite  and products containing  it has 
been prohibited. The placing on the market of products containing other forms of asbestos has 
been  restricted.  Those  provisions  were  amended  several  times  before  the  final  ban  on  the 
manufacture,  placing  on  the  market,  and  use  of  all  forms  of  asbestos,  and  of  articles  and 
mixtures  containing  them  and  to  which  they  were  added  intentionally24  was  introduced  in 
2005. 

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

The  AWD  and  the  REACH  Regulation  are  legally  complementary.  The  OSH  Framework 
Directive25 lays down the main principles of prevention of occupational risks and protection 
of  safety  and  health.  It  applies  to  all  sectors  of  activities  and  has  no  bearing  on  current  or 
future national  and EU  rules that ensure  a higher level  of  protection of workers’  health and 
safety at work. A series of individual Directives in the area of OSH were adopted on the basis 
of  Article  16  of  the  OSH  Framework  Directive  (including  the  AWD).  The  REACH 
Regulation,  in  turn,  states  that  it  applies  without  prejudice  to  worker-protection  legislation, 
including the AWD. 

2. 

• 

LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY 

Legal basis 

Article 153(2)(b) of the  Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides 
that  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  ‘may  adopt,  in  the  fields  referred  to  in 
paragraph  1(a)  to  (i)  [of  Article  of  the  153  TFEU],  by  means  of  directives,  minimum 
requirements for gradual implementation, having regard to the conditions and technical rules 
obtaining in each of the Member States. Such directives shall avoid imposing administrative, 
financial and legal constraints in a way which would hold back the creation and development 
of  small  and  medium-sized  undertakings’.  Article  153(1)(a)  TFEU  states  that  the  EU  shall 
support and complement the activities of the Member States in the field of ‘improvement in 
particular of the working environment to protect workers’ health and safety’. 

The AWD was  adopted  on the  basis of Article 153(2)(b) TFEU to  improve workers’ health 
and safety. The present proposal aims to strengthen the level of workers’ health protection in 
line  with  Article  153(1)(a)  TFEU,  in  the  form  of  a  revised  OEL  accompanied  by  some 
technical  adaptations.  Therefore,  Article  153(2)(b)  TFEU  is  the  proper  legal  basis  for  the 
Commission’s proposal. 

23 

24 

25 

Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the  European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 
concerning  the  Registration,  Evaluation,  Authorisation  and  Restriction  of  Chemicals.  Available  at: 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32006R1907. 
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  the  REACH  Regulation 
(Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (OJ L 396. 30.12.2006. p. 1), see its Annex XVII, entry 6, on asbestos 
fibres). 
See footnote 22. 

EN 

5 

  EN 

 
                                                 
Pursuant to Article 153(2) TFEU, the improvement in particular of the working environment 
to  protect  workers’  health  and  safety  is  an  aspect  of  social  policy,  where  the  EU  shares 
competence with the Member States. 

• 

Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)  

As risks to workers’ health and safety arising from exposure to asbestos are broadly similar 
across the EU, there is a clear role for the EU in supporting Member States in addressing such 
risks. 

Data gathered during the preparatory work indicate that there are differences in the Member 
States regarding the setting of limit values for asbestos. As a result, workers in the EU have 
various levels of protection. Three Member States have set binding OELs below the EU OEL 
(Denmark26, the Netherlands27 and France28), while one Member State (Germany29) has set a 
limit  value  corresponding  to  an  acceptable  concentration30  in  addition  to  the  binding  limit 
value, providing for a stricter approach than using the current EU OEL.  

These  four  Member  States  have  already  reduced  their  exposure  limit  values  for  asbestos 
below  the  OEL  enshrined  in  EU  legislation,  acknowledging  the  recent  development  of 
scientific knowledge and technology in this area.  

Updating  the  AWD  is  an  effective  way  to  ensure  that  preventive  measures  are  updated 
accordingly  in  all  Member  States.  It  will  help  achieve  a  uniform  level  of  minimum 
requirements designed to guarantee a better standard of health and safety, and thus minimise 
differences in the protection of workers’ health and safety between Member States and across 
the EU single market. 

Therefore,  a  revised  EU  OEL  helps  achieve  a  more  harmonised  and  better  protection  of 
workers, and level the playing field for businesses across the EU.  

Companies willing to operate in multiple Member States can further benefit from streamlined 
applicable  limit  values.  This  may  result  in  savings,  as  common  solutions  can  be  adopted 
across facilities, as  opposed  to  having to  design  site-specific solutions  to meet  various OEL 
requirements. 

Revising the limit value is  very  complex and requires  a high level  of scientific expertise. A 
significant advantage of the revision of the EU OEL is that it eliminates the need for Member 
States  to  carry  out  their  own  scientific  analysis,  with  likely  substantial  savings  on 
administrative  costs.  Instead,  these  saved  resources  could  be  dedicated  to  further  improving 
OSH policies in each Member State.  

It follows that EU-level action to achieve the objectives of this proposal is necessary, as these 
objectives  cannot  be  sufficiently  achieved  by  the  Member  States,  either  at  central  or  at 
regional and local level, because of the scale and effects of the proposed action. This is in line 
with Article 5(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). Amending the AWD can only be 

26 
27 

28 

29 

30 

Since 2022, the limit value for asbestos is 0.003 fibres/cm3 (https://asbest-huset.dk/graensevaerdi/). 
Since 2017, asbestos fibres of the chrysotile type and amphibolic asbestos fibres, respectively, should 
not exceed 0.002 fibres/cm3. 
Since 2015, the OEL is 0.01 fibres/cm3, measured by transmission electron microscopy, thus including 
‘thin asbestos fibres’.  
While the current binding OEL in Germany  is 0.1 fibres/cm3,  mandatory guidelines require  measures 
that are considered to bring the exposure concentration below the ‘acceptance level’ (0.01 fibres/cm3) in 
practice. 
The  acceptable  risk  is  the  additional  cancer  risk  that  is  accepted,  meaning  that  statistically,  4  out  of 
10,000  persons  exposed  to  the  substance  throughout  their  working  life  will  develop  cancer.  BAUA, 
National Asbestos Profile for Germany, 2014. 

EN 

6 

  EN 

                                                 
done at  EU level  and after a two-stage consultation  of the social partners (management and 
labour) in accordance with Article 154 TFEU. 

• 

Proportionality 

The  proposed  amendment  of  the  AWD  is  focused  on:  (i)  revising  the  OEL  for  asbestos  by 
amending Article 8 of the AWD on the basis of the available scientific and technological data, 
as provided for by  recital 3 of the AWD; (ii) addressing some aspects directly  linked to the 
lowering of the current OEL (such as measurement techniques); and (iii) providing technical 
clarifications of the text of the Directive. 

representatives  of  employers’  organisations  and 

With  regard  to  the  proposed  limit  value,  socio-economic  feasibility  factors  have  been 
considered  after  thorough  discussions  with  all  stakeholders  (representatives  of  workers’ 
organisations, 
representatives  of 
governments).  This  initiative  aims  to  ensure  a  balanced  approach,  i.e.  to  prevent  companies 
from  facing  severe  economic  disadvantages  while  providing  an  appropriate  protection  to 
workers at EU level. The initiative is considered balanced and justified in light of the accrued 
and  long-term  benefits  in  terms  of  reducing  health  risks  arising  from  workers’  exposure  to 
asbestos  and  saving  lives,  without  putting  a  disproportionate  burden  on  businesses  in  the 
concerned sectors, including on micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises. 

In accordance with Article 153(4) TFEU, this proposal lays down minimum requirements and 
does not prevent any Member State from maintaining or introducing more stringent protective 
measures compatible with the Treaties, for example, in the form of lower limit values or other 
provisions ensuring greater protection for workers. 

It follows that in line with the principle of proportionality, as set out in Article 5(4) TEU, this 
proposal does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve its objectives. Detailed information 
on  compliance  with  the  principle  of  proportionality  is  provided  in  the  impact  assessment 
accompanying this proposal (point 8.2). 

• 

Choice of the instrument 

Article 153(2)(b) TFEU specifies that minimum requirements in the field of workers’ health 
and safety protection may be adopted ‘by means of directives’. 

3. 

• 

RESULTS 
CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 

EX-POST 

EVALUATIONS, 

OF 

STAKEHOLDER 

Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation 

The  most  recent  in-depth  evaluation  of  the  AWD  (2017  ex  post  evaluation  of  the  EU  OSH 
Directives31)  concluded  that  according  to  the  available  evidence,  the  AWD  remains  highly 
relevant and effective. At the same time, the study supporting this evaluation concluded that 
to increase the AWD’s relevance and effectiveness, lowering the OEL for asbestos should be 
considered.  The  study  also  suggested  that  this  issue  needed  more  in-depth  analysis.  This 
proposal addresses those findings and is based on a thorough analysis of the issues identified. 

• 

Stakeholder consultations 

Two-stage consultation of the EU social partners in accordance with Article 154 TFEU 

31 

SWD(2017) 10 final. 

EN 

7 

  EN 

 
                                                 
In 2020 and 2021, the Commission carried out a two-stage consultation of the social partners 
at  EU  level  pursuant  to  Article  154(2)  TFEU.  The  first  phase  of  the  social  partners’ 
consultation ended on 11 February 2021 and confirmed the social partners’ overall support for 
revising the current OEL  for asbestos. The second phase  of the consultation, which focused 
on the envisaged content of the possible proposal, ended on 30 September 2021. 

This  consultation  enabled  the  Commission  to  collect  EU  social  partners’  opinions  on  the 
possible direction and content of EU action on revising the binding OEL for asbestos. 

The results of the first phase of the consultation confirmed the social partners’ overall support 
for an EU-level approach to OELs for hazardous chemicals for workers across the EU. 
The  two  workers’  organisations  that  replied  to  the  consultation32  acknowledged  the 
importance of revising the current OEL for asbestos and requested a broader scope of action 
under the AWD. Among other things, they suggested: (i) widening the scope of the AWD to 
include  an  updated  list  of  all  known  forms  of  fibres  with  similar  harmful  effects  on  human 
health;  (ii)  deleting  the  concepts  of  sporadic  exposure  and  low-intensity  exposure,  and  of 
friable  and  non-friable  asbestos-containing  materials;  and  (iii)  prohibiting  the  encapsulation 
and sealing of asbestos. They also made suggestions on technical aspects33, most of which are 
already  covered  by  the  general  terms  of  the  AWD,  while  others  go  beyond  its  scope.  Their 
suggestions mirror the proposals of the European Parliament resolution34. Some suggestions 
go beyond the scope of the OSH policy area, such as mandatory screening of buildings or the 
creation of national asbestos registers. Other suggestions go beyond EU competences, such as 
a  legislative  proposal  for  the  recognition  of  occupational  diseases,  with  minimum  standards 
for recognition procedures, and for the compensation of victims. 
The three employers’ organisations that replied to the consultation35 supported the objective 
of effectively protecting workers from exposure to hazardous chemicals, including by setting 
OELs at EU level, where appropriate. They considered that this is in the interest of workers 
and  businesses  and  helps  level  the  playing  field  for  businesses.  However,  they  also  raised 
some  concerns  about  the  approach  taken  to  setting  such  values.  Two  employers’ 
organisations36  highlighted  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 the ACSH is pivotal.  

In  the  second  phase  of  the  consultation,  two  workers’  organisations  that  replied  to  the 
consultation37 recognised the importance of further improving the protection of workers from 
exposure  to  asbestos,  and  supported  the  revision  of  the  OEL  in  the  AWD.  Both  workers’ 
organisations reiterated their position from  the first stage  of the consultation,  calling for the 
same measures as proposed in the European Parliament resolution.  

Three out of four employers’ organisations that replied to both the first and the second phase 
of  the  consultation38  reiterated  their  previous  statements.  The  Shipyards’  &  Maritime 
Equipment  Association  of  Europe,  which  only  answered  to  the  second  phase  of  the 

32 
33 

34 

35 

36 
37 
38 

European Trade Union Confederation and European Federation of Building and Woodworkers. 
For  example,  laying  down  technical  minimum  requirements  to  lower  the  concentration  of  asbestos 
fibres, representative sampling of workers’ personal exposure, and more.  
European  Parliament  resolution  of  20  October  2021  with  recommendations  to  the  Commission  on 
protecting workers from asbestos (2019/2182(INL), OJ C 184, 5.5.2022, p. 45). 
BusinessEurope,  SMEunited  (European  Association  of  Crafts  and  SMEs)  and  European  Construction 
Industry Federation. 
BusinessEurope and SMEunited. 
European Trade Union Confederation and European Federation of Building and Woodworkers. 
BusinessEurope,  SMEunited,  European  Construction  Industry  Federation  and  Shipyards’  &  Maritime 
Equipment Association of Europe. 

EN 

8 

  EN 

                                                 
consultation, referred to encapsulation as the best and safest method for dealing with asbestos 
in the maritime industry. 

Consultation of the ACSH 

to  actively  participate 

the  Working  Party  on  Chemicals 

The  tripartite  ACSH  is  composed  of  representatives  of  national  governments  and  workers’ 
and  employers’  organisations.  It  was  consulted  on  this  proposal  via  its  dedicated  Working 
Party  on  Chemicals,  in  accordance  with  the  ACSH’s  mandate.  In  this  mandate,  the 
in 
Commission  requests 
recommending  priorities  for  new  or  revised  scientific  evaluations.  The  Working  Party  on 
Chemicals’  opinion  takes  into  account  the  RAC’s  scientific  input,  and  socio-economic  and 
feasibility factors. 
On  24 November 2021,  the  ACSH  adopted  an  opinion39  on  a  binding  EU  OEL  under  the 
AWD. In this opinion, a consensus agreement was reached on the need to substantially lower 
the  current  binding  OEL  to  better  protect  workers’  health  and  safety,  taking  into  account 
scientific and technical developments since the adoption of the current OEL of 0.1 fibres/cm3 
in  2003.  However,  no  consensus  was  reached  on  the  limit  value  to  be  proposed.  The 
Government  Interest  Group  (GIG)  and  the  Employers  Interest  Group  (EIG)  agreed  that  the 
new  limit  value  should  be  set  at  0.01  fibres/cm3,  while  the  Workers  Interest  Group  (WIG) 
stressed  its  preference  for  a  new  OEL  equal  to  0.001  fibres/cm3,  corresponding  to  the  limit 
value put forward in the European Parliament’s resolution. 

Taking into account technical developments, the ACSH also suggested to replace the phase-
contrast  microscopy  (PCM),  currently  the  most  widely  used  methodology  for  workplace 
measurement  of  asbestos  fibres  in  the  air,  with  a  more  modern  and  sensitive  methodology 
based on electron microscopy (EM).  

In  this  respect,  the  GIG  highlighted  that  since  many  Member  States  still  use  PCM,  a 
transitional  period  will  be  needed  to  allow  laboratories  to  acquire  new  equipment,  train 
technicians  and  organise  interlaboratory  comparison.  The  GIG  added  that  based  on  the 
experience  of  the  Member  States  using  EM,  laboratories  will  need  2-3  years  to  adapt.  The 
GIG recommended that the new OEL be implemented no later than 4 years after the entry into 
force of the amending Directive, while the EIG suggested a longer deadline (4-5-years). The 
WIG  demanded  that  the  new  OEL  be  implemented  as  soon  as  possible  after  the  entry  into 
force of the updated AWD.  

• 

Collection and use of expertise 

In  reviewing  the  limit  value  under  the  AWD,  the  Commission  follows  a  well-established 
procedure that involves seeking scientific advice and consulting the ACSH. A sound scientific 
basis is indispensable in underpinning any OSH action, particularly in relation to asbestos. In 
this regard, the Commission sought advice from the RAC.  

The  RAC  develops  high-quality  comparative  analytical  knowledge  and  ensures  that 
Commission proposals, decisions and policy  on the protection of workers’ health and safety 
are based on sound scientific evidence. Members of the RAC are highly qualified, specialised, 
independent experts selected on the basis of objective criteria. They provide the Commission 
with opinions that are helpful for the development of EU policy on workers’ protection.  

39 

ACSH, Opinion on an EU Binding Occupational Exposure Limit Value (BOEL) for Asbestos under the 
Asbestos at Work Directive 2009/148/EC (Doc. 008-21), adopted on 24.11.2021. 

EN 

9 

  EN 

 
 
                                                 
The scientific opinion of the RAC necessary for the revision of the asbestos OEL was adopted 
in  June 202140. 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, an ERR 
was  derived,  which  is  presented  as  the  relation  between  exposure  levels  and  the  associated 
risk. 

For this initiative, the Commission has used the RAC’s opinion on an updated risk assessment 
for  asbestos.  The  opinion  proposes  an  ERR  expressing  the  excess  risk  of  cancer  mortality 
(lung  cancer  and  mesothelioma)  related  to  various  levels  of  exposure.  The  relationship 
between  the  various  exposure  values  and  the  risk  of  developing  cancer  shows  the  risk  for 
exposed  workers  at  various  OELs.  For  example,  for  an  exposure  value  equivalent  to  the 
current  OEL,  there  is  a  risk  that  125  out  of  100 000  exposed  workers  could  develop  lung 
cancer or mesothelioma. 

• 

Impact assessment 

This  proposal  is  supported  by  an  impact  assessment.  The  impact-assessment  report  was 
supported  by  a  study  that  collected  information  to  analyse  health,  socio-economic  and 
environmental  impacts  in  connection  with  possible  amendments  of  the  AWD41.  The  impact 
assessment  was  presented  to  and  reviewed  by  the  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  (RSB)  on 
27 April 2022.  It  received  a  positive  opinion  with  reservations  dated  29 April 2022.  The 
comments of the RSB were addressed in the final impact-assessment report. 

The following options for various limit values for asbestos were examined: 

 

 

a baseline scenario of no further EU action (option 1); and 

options for various OELs, taking into account the scientific assessment of  the 
RAC42,  the  opinion  of  the  ACSH43,  and  the  OELs  in  place  in  the  Member 
States  (the  scientific  evaluation  provides  a  solid  evidence-based  approach, 
while  the  ACSH’s  opinion  provides  important  information  for  the  successful 
implementation of the revised OEL options). 

Several  other  options  were  discarded  at  an  early  stage  as  they  were  considered 
disproportionate or less effective in reaching the objectives of this initiative. These discarded 
options were related to the way of setting an OEL, to the choice of another instrument, or to 
support  to  small  to  medium-sized  enterprises  (SMEs).  Non-regulatory  alternatives  such  as 
guidance  documents  or  examples  of  good  practice  were  not  considered  effective  enough  in 
reaching  the  objectives  of  this  initiative  since  they  would  result  in  non-binding  provisions. 
Adopting  a  different  solution  for  SMEs  was  also  discarded  as  a  very  significant  number  of 
workers  affected by asbestos exposure are employed by SMEs  and all  workers should have 
the same level of protection independently of the size of the enterprise.  

The  Commission  analysed  the  economic,  social  and  environmental  impacts  of  the  various 
policy  options.  The  results  of  this  analysis  are  presented  in  the  impact  assessment 
accompanying  the  present  proposal.  The  policy  options  were  compared  and  the  preferred 
option  was  chosen  based  on  the  following  criteria:  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  coherence. 
Costs  and  benefits  were  calculated  over  a  40-year  period.  The  future  disease  burden  was 

40 
41 
42 
43 

RAC opinion. See footnote 21. 
See footnote 18. 
RAC opinion. See footnote 21. 
See footnote 39. 

EN 

10 

  EN 

 
                                                 
estimated  over  the  same  period  to  take  proper  account  of  the  latency  period  for  cancer.  All 
analytical steps were performed in line with the Better Regulation Guidelines44. 

The Commission compared the envisaged options and took into account the positions of the 
various ACSH interest groups. Based on this, the Commission selected the preferred option of 
setting  an  OEL  equal  to  0.01  fibres/cm3  as  an  8-hour  TWA  and  translated  this  into  a 
corresponding legislative provision set out in this proposal. This option is considered balanced 
and  justified  in  light  of  its  accrued  and  long-term  benefits  in  terms  of  reducing  health  risks 
arising  from  workers’  exposure 
lives,  without  putting  a 
disproportionate  burden  on  businesses  in  the  concerned  sectors,  including  on  micro-,  small- 
and medium-sized enterprises. 

to  asbestos  and  saving 

Taking  into  account  technical  developments  and  the  need  to  measure  much  lower  exposure 
levels to check compliance with the potentially revised OEL, all ACSH interest groups agreed 
that in addition to PCM (currently the reference method for quantifying asbestos fibres in the 
air at the workplace), a more modern and sensitive methodology based on EM could be used 
when  feasible.  The  GIG  and  the  EIG  also  underlined  that  some  time  will  be  needed  to 
implement  the  new  measurement  methodology  since  many  Member  States  still  use  PCM. 
Therefore,  an  adaptation  period  will  be  necessary  to  allow  laboratories  to  acquire  new 
equipment, train technicians and organise interlaboratory comparison. 

Without  EU  action,  it  is  estimated  that  workers  exposed  to  asbestos  will  continue  to  face  a 
higher risk of developing occupational cancer. According to a baseline scenario45, if no action 
is taken, current exposure levels will lead to 884 cases of cancer attributable to occupational 
exposure to asbestos46 in the EU-27 over the next 40 years, ultimately leading to 707 deaths 
over  the  same  period.  The  study  supporting  the  impact  assessment47  estimates  that  these 
estimated  cancer  cases  will  result  in  health  costs  of  between  EUR 228 million  and 
EUR 438 million. 

Impact on workers 

As  regards  the  impact  on  workers,  this  initiative  should  help  avoid  work-related  cases  of 
cancer, while reducing effects such as suffering of workers and their caring families, reduced 
quality of life or undermined well-being. It is estimated that 663 cases of cancer (lung cancer, 
mesothelioma,  laryngeal  cancer  and  ovarian  cancer)  could  be  prevented.  The  initiative’s 
monetised  health  benefit  is  assessed  at  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. 

Impact on employers 

As  regards  the  impact  on  employers,  this  initiative  could  lead  to  higher  operating  costs  for 
companies, which will have to  adjust their working practices to  comply  with  the new OEL. 
Those  costs  will  consist  of  incremental  costs  of  RMMs  (including  respiratory  protective 
equipment),  costs  of  notification  and  medical  surveillance,  monitoring  costs  and  training 
costs. The possible costs of additional measurements due to a lower limit value would entail a 

44 
45 
46 
47 

Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en. 
As close as possible to the future situation. 
Including mesothelioma and lung, laryngeal and ovarian cancer. 
See footnote 18. 

EN 

11 

  EN 

 
 
                                                 
very limited additional administrative burden for companies. The selected option would entail 
the lowest costs for companies. 

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.  Costs  are,  to  a  large  extent, 
likely to be passed on to customers. 

It is not expected that a significant number of companies would discontinue operations as a 
result  of  the  preferred  option.  Consequently,  no  significant  net  loss  of  employment  is 
predicted48.  The  benefits  of  healthier  staff  could  have  indirect  effects  on  companies’ 
reputation,  as  work  with  asbestos  may  be  perceived  less  as  a  risky  line  of  work  associated 
with  health  issues.  As  a  result,  companies  may  find  it  easier  to  recruit  and  retain  staff, 
reducing the cost of recruitment and increasing the productivity of workers.  

The  proposal  does  not  add  any  information  obligations  and  will  thus  not  increase  the 
administrative burden on businesses. 

Impact on the environment 

There is little measured data on the impact on the environment. Nevertheless, the release of 
asbestos is believed to be relatively low based on the current rules on asbestos waste and on 
demolition  or  maintenance  activities  involving  asbestos  in  buildings49.  Due  to  these  low 
release levels, the environmental impacts of asbestos are believed to be relatively low despite 
asbestos fibres’ persistence and toxicity.  Further RMMs to comply with a stricter OEL may 
also  help  to  marginally  improve  environmental  exposure  to  asbestos,  even  though  it  is 
unlikely that significant differences will be observed. The environmental impact of asbestos is 
reduced  by  current  EU  waste 
the 
environmentally sound management of asbestos waste once it is generated50. Asbestos waste 
is  classified as  hazardous waste51. Therefore, under EU waste legislation, specific and more 
stringent  rules  apply  to  the  generation,  transport  and  management  of  such  waste,  including 
reporting  and  traceability  obligations  to  ensure  that  the  waste  is  managed  in  a  way  that 
protects the environment.  

legislation,  which  comprehensively 

regulates 

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.  The  more  stringent  the  OEL,  the  greater  these  negative 
impacts  will  be.  Buildings  are  responsible  for  36%  of  energy-related  greenhouse-gas 
emissions.  Given  that  more  than  85%  of  current  buildings  will  still  be  standing  in  2050, 
energy-efficiency  renovations  will  be  essential  in  reaching  the  objectives  of  the  European 
Green  Deal52.  In  this  context,  the  renovation  wave  strategy53  aims  to  double  the  annual 
energy-renovation rate by 2030. Specialised renovation works to reduce energy consumption 

48 
49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

See footnote 18. 
The Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) and the Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC), which address 
the  environmentally  sound  management  of  asbestos  waste,  and  the  EU  Construction  &  Demolition 
Waste Management Protocol and the Guidelines for the waste audits before demolition and renovation 
works of buildings, published by  the  Commission,  which aim to assist  businesses in the safe  removal 
and management of asbestos. 
According to Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 2008/98/EC on waste, ‘buildings permanently connected with 
land’ are excluded from the scope of the Directive since they are not regarded as waste. 
In accordance with Annex III to Directive 2008/98/EC on waste and Decision 2000/532/EC on the list 
of waste. 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:c51fe6d1-5da2-11ec-9c6c-
01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF  
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/eu_renovation_wave_strategy.pdf 

EN 

12 

  EN 

 
                                                 
can  boost  the  long-term  value  of  properties  and  create  jobs  and  investment,  often  rooted  in 
local supply chains. 

Impacts on climate change 

Asbestos  has  the  property  of  absorbing  carbon  dioxide  molecules  dissolved  in  rainwater  or 
floating through the air54, 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 of 
asbestos materials that are still in place (e.g. roof sheets and other external building materials 
containing asbestos) and thus potentialy releasing them to environment.  

Impact on Member States / national authorities 

As  regards  the  impact  on  Member  States  /  national  authorities,  Member  States  that  have  in 
place an OEL for asbestos at the level of the limit value set in this initiative or lower will be 
less  affected  than  Member  States  that  have  in  place  a  higher  OEL.  The  costs  for  national 
authorities estimated at around 390 thousand EUR per country and per year are not expected 
to be significant. Those costs relate to: (i) transposition costs for adopting national provisions 
to  accommodate  the  changes  to  the  OEL;  (ii)  costs  for  changing  guidelines  (including 
recommended  measures  to  ensure  that  occupational  exposure  concentrations  are  well  below 
the  OEL);  and  (iii)  enforcement,  monitoring  and  adjudication  costs.  Costs  under  point  (iii) 
derive  exclusively  from  the  processing  of  new  notifications55,  and  are  estimated  to  be  in  a 
range  between  EUR  EUR  650  million  and  EUR  2.18  billion  over  40  years  or  EUR  16.25 
million and EUR 54.5 million per year. 

Based on the experience gathered from the work of the Senior Labour Inspectors Committee 
(SLIC)  and  taking  into  account  the  way  enforcement  activities  are  organised  in  various 
Member  States,  it  is  unlikely  that  the  revision  of  the  limit  value  for  asbestos  in  the  AWD 
would  have  any  impact  on  the  overall  cost  of  inspections.  Inspections  are  mostly  planned 
independently of the proposal, often following complaints, or in line with a given authority’s 
inspection  strategy.  However,  inspections  may  address  relevant  industries  where  asbestos  is 
present.  

This initiative should also help mitigate financial losses of Member States’ social-security and 
healthcare  systems  by  preventing  ill  health.  The  estimated  benefits  for  public  authorities 
(EUR  3.4  million  over  40  years)  are  smaller  than  the  quantified  costs  (around  EUR  421 
million over 40 years). 

As regards simplifying current legislation and making it more efficient, the preferred option 
eliminates the need for Member States to carry out their own scientific analysis to revise the 
OEL.  Simplification  also  helps  employers  in  ensuring  legal  compliance,  particularly 
employers operating in multiple Member States. 

54 

55 

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/10/06/1009374/asbestos-could-be-a-powerful-weapon-
against-climate-change-you-read-that-right/ 
The  planned  revision  of  the  AWD  does  not  change  the  notification  system.  Lowering  the  OEL  can 
indirectly increase costs for Member States and businesses if the number of notifications increases. This 
cost would rather be linked to how the AWD is currently implemented in the Member States (in relation 
to the notification system) than to an administrative obligation imposed by the OEL change. 

EN 

13 

  EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Contribution to sustainable development 

The  initiative  will  help  achieve  the  Sustainable  Development  Goals  (SDGs)  on  good  health 
and well-being (SDG 3) and decent work and economic growth (SDG 8). It is also expected to 
have a positive impact on the SDG on industry, innovation and infrastructure (SDG 9) and on 
responsible production and consumption (SDG 12). 

Impact on digitalisation 

While the impact on digitalisation was not analysed in detail, it can be expected to be positive, 
for  example  because  of  the  development  of  artificial-intelligence  tools  combined  with 
measurement techniques to improve fibre counting, or the development of robotic extraction 
of asbestos from buildings. 

• 

Regulatory fitness and simplification 

Impact on SMEs 

This  proposal  does  not  contain  any  exceptions  for  micro-enterprises  or  SMEs.  Under  the 
AWD, SMEs are not exempted from the obligation to reduce the exposure of workers to dust 
from asbestos or materials containing asbestos at the place of work to a minimum and in any 
case below the limit value laid down in Article 8 of the AWD. 

Revising the limit value for asbestos as provided for in this proposal should have no impact 
on SMEs located in Member States where the national limit values are either equal to or lower 
than  the  proposed  values.  However,  there  may  be  an  economic  impact  on  SMEs  and  other 
businesses in Member States that currently have in place higher OELs for asbestos. 

Small  companies,  which  account  for  99.32%  of  companies  working  with  asbestos  in  all 
sectors, will more likely be affected by the reduced OEL for asbestos. 

Costs  are  expected  to  have  a  small  impact  (cost/turnover  ratio  between  2  and  4%)  in  the 
sectors  of  repair  of  electrical  equipment,  repair  and  maintenance  of  ships  and  boats,  and 
maintenance  and  repair  of  motor  vehicles  (0.02%  of  all  companies  dealing  with  asbestos). 
With the exception of SMEs in these sectors, the big majority of SMEs will not necessarily be 
impacted by cost increases. 

Therefore,  it  can  be  concluded  that  the  overall  analysis  presented  in  the  impact  assessment 
accompanying  this  proposal  has  duly  taken  into  account  the  specificities,  limitations  and 
particular challenges of SMEs. 

Impact on EU competitiveness or international trade 

This initiative will have a positive impact on competition in the single market by: (i) reducing 
competitive  differences  between  firms  operating  in  Member  States  with  different  national 
OELs for asbestos; and (ii) providing greater certainty on an enforceable exposure limit across 
the EU. 

Introducing a lower OEL will have a smaller impact on the competitiveness of companies that 
are  already  closer  to  any  OEL  that  is  being  assessed.  This  is  particularly  relevant  for 
companies  working  in  France,  Denmark,  the  Netherlands  and  Germany,  where  OELs  are 
similar to or lower than the proposed OEL option (0.01 fibres/cm3). 

EN 

14 

  EN 

 
 
 
This  might  make  these  companies  more  cost-competitive  than  companies  traditionally 
working  elsewhere  in  the  EU  or  outside  the  EU.  However,  most  of  the  work  involving 
asbestos is carried out  in situ (i.e. at the location of the building). Consequently,  companies 
cannot  benefit  from  any  competitive  advantages  stemming  from  less  strict  requirements  in 
their country of origin. Although most asbestos-related activities are performed by companies 
working in one Member State only, larger companies (and, to a lesser extent, also medium-
sized companies) with facilities in multiple Member States could benefit from administrative 
simplification, owing to a harmonised set of compliance requirements. 

• 

Fundamental rights 

The impact on fundamental rights is considered positive, in particular with regard to Article 2 
(Right to life) and Article 31 (Fair and just working conditions) of the Charter of Fundamental 
Rights of the European Union. 
In terms of gender equality, 97% of workers in the construction sector are men56. 

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS 

The  proposal  does  not  require  additional  budget  and  staff  resources  for  the  EU  budget  or 
bodies set up by the EU. 

5. 

• 

OTHER ELEMENTS 

Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements 

The core indicators used when monitoring the impacts of this Directive are: (i) the number of 
occupational diseases and work-related cancer cases in the EU; and (ii) the reduction of costs 
related to occupational cancer for businesses and social-security systems in the EU.  

Monitoring of the first indicator is based on: (i) available data collected by Eurostat; (ii) data 
notified  by  employers  to  the  competent  national  authorities  on  cases  of  cancer  identified  in 
accordance with national law or practice resulting from occupational exposure to asbestos in 
accordance  with  Article  14(8)  CMRD,  which  may  be  accessed  by  the  Commission  in 
accordance  with  Article  18  CMRD;  and  (iii)  data  submitted  by  Member  States  pursuant  to 
Article  22  AWD  on  the  submission  to  the  Commission  of  reports  on  the  practical 
implementation  of  the  AWD  in  accordance  with  Article  17a  of  the  OSH  Framework 
Directive. 

Monitoring  of  the  second  indicator  requires  the  comparison  of  the  estimated  data  on  the 
burden  of  occupational  cancer  in  terms  of  economic  loss  and  healthcare  costs  and  the  data 
collected  on  these  matters  after  the  adoption  of  the  revision.  The  productivity  loss  and  the 
healthcare  costs  can  be  calculated  using  the  number  of  occupational  cancer  cases  and  the 
number of occupational cancer deaths. 

Compliance  of  the  amended  provisions’  transposition  will  be  assessed  in  two  stages 
(transposition  and  conformity  checks).  The  Commission  will  evaluate  the  proposed 
amendment’s practical implementation as part of the periodical evaluation that it must carry 

56 

Eurostat, Jobs still split along gender lines. 

EN 

15 

  EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
out  pursuant  to  Article  17a  of  the  OSH  Framework  Directive.  Application  and  enforcement 
will be monitored by national authorities, in particular by national labour inspectorates. 

At  EU  level,  the  SLIC  informs  the  Commission  of  any  practical  problems  relating  to  the 
enforcement  of  the  AWD,  including  difficulties  regarding  compliance  with  a  binding  limit 
value for asbestos.  

Collecting reliable data in this area is complex. Therefore, the Commission and the European 
Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) are actively working on improving data 
quality and availability, so that the actual impact of the proposed initiative  can be measured 
more  accurately  and  additional  indicators  can  be  developed  (e.g.  on  mortality  caused  by 
occupational cancer).  

Ongoing projects generating useful data include cooperation with national authorities on the 
European Occupational Diseases Statistics data collection57 and the workers’ exposure survey 
on  cancer  risk  factors  to  be  implemented  by  EU-OSHA58.  Legislative  action  needs  to  be 
followed by effective implementation at the workplace. Companies can use the broad range of 
tools,  information  and  good  practices  provided  by  EU-OSHA  as  part  of  the  Healthy 
Workplaces Campaign on dangerous substances59. 

The  Commission,  in  cooperation  with  the  ACSH,  also  intends  to  develop  guidelines  to 
support the application of the AWD once its proposed amendment is adopted. The guidelines 
could  provide  in-depth  information  on  provisions  already included in  the  current  version  of 
the AWD (for example on training and use of personal protective equipment). Some of these 
provisions  fall  within  the  competence  of  the  Member  States  (such  as  certification  of 
asbestos-removal firms), but clarification and advice on them might be beneficial.  

It  is  crucial  to  promote  appropriate  training  for  workers  who  handle  asbestos  as  part  of 
construction, renovation and demolition works. The guidelines could help Member States and 
employers,  especially  SMEs,  to  make  sure  that  workers  are  aware  of  the  precautions  to  be 
taken, to achieve the highest level of protection.  

The  guidelines  could  also  address  other  issues  related  to  the  decontamination  procedure, 
supplementing the current AWD provisions on: 

the drawing up of a work plan before starting demolition work or work on removing asbestos 
and/or asbestos-containing products from buildings, structures, plants or installations or from 
ships,  which,  at  the  request  of  the  competent  authorities,  must  include  information  on 
protection  and  decontamination  of  those  carrying  out  the  work  (Article  13(2),  third 
subparagraph, point (d)(i)); and 

the training of workers, which enables them to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills in 
terms  of  prevention  and  safety,  particularly  as  regards  decontamination  procedures  (Article 
14(2)(g)). 

The  guidelines  could  also  address  some  provisions  that  fall  within  the  competence  of  the 
Member States (such as certification of asbestos-removal firms). Additional support on these 

57 
58 

59 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/experimental-statistics/european-occupational-diseases-statistics  
https://osha.europa.eu/en/facts-and-figures/workers-exposure-survey-cancer-risk-factors-europe. 
The 
survey will initially be carried out in a broadly representative selection of  6 Member States and cover 
24 cancer risk factors, including asbestos, with the first findings expected in 2023. 
The campaign pursued several objectives, including raising awareness of the importance of preventing 
risks  from  dangerous  substances,  promoting  risk  assessment,  heightening  awareness  of  risks  of 
exposure to carcinogens at work, or increasing knowledge of the legislative framework. It was carried 
out  in  2018-2019.  One  of  the  features  is  a  database  of  guidance  and  good  practices  available  at 
https://osha.europa.eu/en/themes/dangerous-substances/practical-tools-dangerous-substances. 

EN 

16 

  EN 

                                                 
provisions  could  be  beneficial.  The  guidelines  could  also  provide  practical  information  on 
concepts related to the AWD’s implementation, such as sporadic and low-intensity exposure, 
non-friability,  sampling,  work  plans,  notifications  to  national  authorities,  fitting  checks  for 
personal  protective  equipment,  custody  of  medical  records  and  medical  certificates.  When 
appropriate, the guidelines will include sector-specific responses. This would enable all those 
involved  to  carry  out  the  expected  number  of  renovations,  ensuring  the  highest  level  of 
protection of workers from exposure to asbestos. 

• 

Explanatory documents (for directives) 

Member  States  must  send  the  Commission  the  text  of  national  provisions  transposing  the 
AWD  and  a  correlation  table  between  those  provisions  and  the  AWD.  Unambiguous 
information  on the transposition of the new provisions is  needed to  ensure compliance with 
the minimum requirements laid down by this proposal. 

Because  of  the  above,  it  is  suggested  that  Member  States  notify  the  Commission  of  their 
transposition  measures  by  providing  one  or  more  documents  explaining  the  relationship 
between  the  components  of  the  AWD  and  the  corresponding  parts  of  national  transposition 
instruments. 

• 

Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal 

Article 1 

Article 1 provides for the amendment of the AWD, in particular with regard to the update of 
the limit value for asbestos and to  other minor aspects  linked to  the lowering of the current 
OEL  (such  as  measurement  techniques  and  technical  and  linguistic  clarifications  and 
adaptations of the text of the AWD).  

Therefore, it is proposed that Article 8 be replaced by a new Article 8 requiring employers to 
ensure  that  no  worker  is  exposed  to  a  higher  airborne  concentration  of  asbestos  than  0.01 
fibres/cm3 as an 8-hour TWA. As it is possible to measure an OEL  equal to 0.01 fibres/cm³ 
with PCM, no transition period is needed for the implementation of the revised OEL. 

However,  following  the  ACSH’s  opinion,  the  use  of  a  more  modern  and  sensitive 
methodology based on EM wherever possible is explicitly mentioned in the article, in addition 
to the recommended fibre counting by PCM, as a method giving equivalent or better results 
than PCM.  

An explicit provision that asbestos within the meaning of the AWD is carcinogenic and that 
asbestos  means  fibrous  silicates  classified  as  carcinogens  1A  according  to  Regulation  (EC) 
1272/200860 was included to avoid ambiguities and divergent interpretations.  

Article 1 also clarifies the obligation of employers to reduce the exposure of workers to dust 
from asbestos or materials containing asbestos at the place of work to a minimum, with the 
precision that in any case it must be as low a level as is technically possible below the limit 
set by the proposal.  

60 

Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on 
classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 
67/548/EEC  and  1999/45/EC,  and  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  1907/2006  (OJ  L  353,  31.12.2008, 
p. 1). 

EN 

17 

  EN 

 
 
                                                 
The  obligation  of  employers  to  take  all  necessary  steps  to  identify  presumed  asbestos-
containing  materials  before  beginning  demolition  or  maintenance  work  by  obtaining 
information from the owners of the premises, is  extended to  cover other relevant sources of 
information, such as relevant registers. 

Articles 2 to 4 

Articles  2  to  4  contain  provisions  on  transposition  into  the  Member  States’  national  law. 
Article 3 lays down the date of entry into force of the proposed Directive. 

EN 

18 

  EN 

 
2022/0298 (COD) 

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 at work 

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union,  and  in  particular 
Article 153(2), point (b), in conjunction with paragraph 1, point (a), thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, 

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments, 
Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee1, 

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions, 
Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure2, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

1 
2 

3 

4 

Directive  2009/148/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council3  aims  to  protect 
workers against risks to their health and safety from exposure to asbestos at the place 
of  work.  A  consistent  level  of  protection  from  the  risks  related  to  the  occupational 
exposure  to  asbestos  is  provided  for  in  that  Directive  by  a  framework  of  general 
principles  to  enable  Member  States  to  ensure  the  consistent  application  of  minimum 
requirements. The aim of these minimum requirements is to protect workers at Union 
level, while more stringent provisions can be set by Member States. 

The  provisions  of  this  Directive  should  apply  without  prejudice  to  more  stringent 
and/or  specific  provisions  contained  in  Directive  2004/37/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council4. 

Asbestos  is  a  highly  dangerous  carcinogenic  agent,  still  affecting  different  economic 
sectors,  such  as  building  and  renovation,  mining  and  quarrying,  waste  management 
and firefighting, where workers are at high risk of being exposed. Asbestos fibres are 
classified as carcinogens 1A according to Regulation (EC) 1272/2008 of the European 

OJ C 56, 16.2.2021, p. 63. 
Position  of  the  European  Parliament  of  XXXXX  (not  yet  published  in  the  Official  Journal)  and 
Decision of the Council of XXXXX. 
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 (Text with EEA relevance) 
OJ L 330, 16.12.2009, p. 28. 
Directive 2004/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the protection 
of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens, mutagens or reprotoxic substances at work 
(Sixth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 
L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 50). 

EN 

19 

  EN 

                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

5 

6 
7 

8 

Parliament  and  of  the  Council  5.  When  inhaled,  airborne  asbestos  fibres  can  lead  to 
serious diseases such as mesothelioma and lung cancer, and the first signs of disease 
may take an average of 30 years to manifest from the moment of exposure, ultimately 
leading to work-related deaths. 

Following  the  new  scientific  and  technological  developments  in  the  area,  there  is 
scope to improve the protection of workers exposed to asbestos and thus to reduce the 
probability of workers contracting asbestos-related diseases. For asbestos, being a non-
threshold  carcinogen,  it  is  not  scientifically  possible  to  identify  levels  below  which 
exposure  would  not  lead  to  adverse  health  effects.  Instead,  an  exposure-risk 
relationship (ERR) can be derived, facilitating the setting of an occupational exposure 
limit  (‘OEL’)  by  taking  into  account  an  acceptable  level  of  excess  risk.  As  a 
consequence,  the  OEL  for  asbestos  should  be  revised  in  order  to  reduce  the  risk  by 
lowering exposure levels. 
The  Europe’s  Beating  Cancer  Plan6  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 Europe7. Citizens’ recommendations in the framework of the Conference on 
the  Future  of  Europe8  also  highlighted  the  importance  of  fair  working  conditions,  in 
particular the revision of Directive 2009/148/EC. 

A  binding  occupational  exposure  limit  value  for  asbestos,  which  must  not  be 
exceeded, is an important component of the general arrangements for the protection of 
workers  established  by  Directive  2009/148/EC,  in  addition  to  the  appropriate  risk 
management measures (RMMs) and to the provision of adequate respiratory and other 
personal protective equipment. 

The limit value for asbestos set out in Directive 2009/148/EC should be revised in the 
light  of  the  Commission’s  evaluations  and  recent  scientific  evidence  and  technical 
data.  Its  revision  is  also  an  effective  way  to  ensure  that  preventive  and  protective 
measures are updated accordingly in all Member States. 

A  revised  limit  value  should  be  set  out  in  this  Directive  in  light  of  available 
information,  including  up-to-date  scientific  evidence  and  technical  data,  based  on  a 
thorough  assessment  of  the  socioeconomic  impact  and  availability  of  exposure 
measurement protocols and techniques at the place of work. That information should 
be based on opinions of the Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) of the European 

Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on 
classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 
67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (Text with EEA relevance) 
OJ L 353, 31.12.2008, p. 1. 
https://ec.europa.eu/health/system/files/2022-02/eu_cancer-plan_en_0.pdf 
Renovation  Wave:  doubling  the  renovation  rate  to  cut  emissions,  boost  recovery  and  reduce  energy 
poverty, COM(2020) 662 final 
Conference  on  the  Future  of  Europe.  Report  on  the  final  outcome  (May  2022).  https://prod-cofe-
platform.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/8pl7jfzc6ae3jy2doji28fni27a3?response-content-
disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3D%22CoFE_Report_with_annexes_EN.pdf%22%3B%20filena
me%2A%3DUTF-8%27%27CoFE_Report_with_annexes_EN.pdf&response-content-
type=application%2Fpdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-
Credential=AKIA3LJJXGZPDFYVOW5V%2F20220917%2Feu-central-
1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20220917T104038Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-
SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-
Signature=6806caf5fd75a86ad4e907b934b2194de4c3c0c756a8d2a34c5e8b68985ffbde  

EN 

20 

  EN 

                                                 
(9) 

Chemicals  Agency  (ECHA),  established  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1907/2006  and 
opinions  of  the  Advisory  Committee  on  Safety  and  Health  at  Work  (ACSH) 
established by a Council Decision of 22 July 20039. 

Taking into account the relevant scientific expertise and a balanced approach ensuring 
at  the  same  time  adequate  protection  of  workers  at  Union  level  and  avoiding 
disproportionate  economic  disadvantages  and  burdens  for  the  affected  economic 
operators (including SMEs), a revised OEL equal to 0.01 fibres/cm3 as an 8-hour time-
weighted  average  (TWA)  should  be  established.  This  balanced  approach  is 
underpinned  by  a  public  health  objective  aiming  at  the  necessary  safe  removal  of 
asbestos.  Consideration  has  also  been  given  to  proposing  an  OEL  that  takes  into 
account economic and technical considerations to allow an effective removal. 

(10)  The Commission has carried out a two-stage consultation of management and labour 
at Union level in accordance with Article 154 of the Treaty. It has also consulted the 
ACSH,  which  has  adopted  an  opinion  providing  also  information  for  the  successful 
implementation  of  the  revised  OEL  options.  The  European  Parliament  adopted  a 
resolution10  calling  for  a  proposal  to  update  Directive  2009/148/EC  in  order  to 
strengthen Union measures for protecting workers from the threat of asbestos. 

(11)  Optical  microscopy,  although  it  does  not  allow  a  counting  of  the  smallest  fibres 
detrimental to health, is currently the most used method for the regular measuring of 
asbestos. As it is possible to measure an OEL equal to 0.01 f/cm³ with phase-contrast 
microscope  (PCM),  no  transition  period  is  needed  for  the  implementation  of  the  
revised  OEL.  In  line  with  the  opinion  of  the  ACSH,  a  more  modern  and  sensitive 
methodology based on electron microscopy should be used, while taking into account 
the need for an adequate period of adaptation and for more EU level harmonisation of 
different electron microscopy methodologies. 

(12)  Taking  into  account  the  exposure  minimisation  requirements  set  out  in  Directive 
2009/148/EC  of the European Parliament and the Council and Directive 2004/37/EC 
of the European Parliament and of the Council, employers should ensure that the risk 
related  to  the  exposure  of  workers  to  asbestos  at  the  place  of  work  is  reduced  to  a 
minimum and in any case to as low a level as is technically possible. 

(13)  Special control measures and precautions are needed for workers exposed or likely to 
be  exposed  to  asbestos,  such  as  subjecting  workers  to  a  decontamination  procedure 
and related training, in order to significantly contribute to reducing the risks related to 
such exposure. 

(14)  Preventive  measures  for  the  protection  of  the  health  of  workers  exposed  to  asbestos 
and the commitment envisaged  for Member States  with  regard to the surveillance of 
their health are important, in particular the continuation of health surveillance after the 
end of exposure. 

(15)  Employers  should  take  all  necessary  steps  to  identify  presumed  asbestos-containing 
materials, if appropriate by obtaining information from the owners of the premises as 
well as other sources of information, including relevant registers. They should record, 
before the start of any asbestos removal project, the presence or presumed presence of 
asbestos in buildings or installations and communicate this information to others who 

9 

10 

Council Decision of 22 July 2003 setting up an Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work (OJ 
C 218, 13.9.2003, p. 1). 
European  Parliament  resolution  of  20  October  2021  with  recommendations  to  the  Commission  on 
protecting workers from asbestos (2019/2182(INL)) (OJ C 184, 5.5.2022, p. 45.) 

EN 

21 

  EN 

                                                 
may be exposed to asbestos as a result of its use, of maintenance or of other activities 
in or on buildings. 

(16)  Since the objective of this Directive, namely to protect workers against risks to their 
health  and  safety  arising  from  or  likely  to  arise  from  exposure  to  asbestos  at  work, 
including the prevention of such risks, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member 
States, but  can rather, by  reason of its  scale and effects,  be better achieved at  Union 
level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity 
as  set  out  in  Article  5  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union.  In  accordance  with  the 
principle  of  proportionality,  as  set  out  in  that  Article,  this  Directive  does  not  go 
beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective. 

(17)  Since this Directive concerns the protection of the health and safety of workers at the 
place  of  work,  it  should  be  transposed  within  two  years  of  the  date  of  its  entry  into 
force. 

(18)  Directive 2009/148/EC should therefore be amended accordingly, 

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: 

Article 1 

Amendments to Directive 2009/148/EC 

Directive 2009/148/EC is amended as follows: 

(1) 

in Article 1(1), the following third subparagraph is added: 

‘The  provisions  of  Directive  2004/37/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council*  shall  apply  whenever  they  are  more  favourable  to  health  and  safety  of 
workers at work.’ 

* Directive 2004/37 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 
2004  on  the  protection  of  workers  from  the  risks  related  to  exposure  to 
carcinogens,  mutagens  or  reprotoxic  substances  at  work  (Sixth  individual 
directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC 
(OJ L 158, 30.04.2004, p. 50), as last amended by Directive (EU) 2022/431 of 
the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  9  March  2022  (OJ  L  88, 
16.3.2022, p. 1–14).; 

(2)   Article 2 is replaced by the following: 

‘Article 2 

For  the  purposes  of  this  Directive,  ‘asbestos’  means  the  following  fibrous  silicates, 
which are classified as carcinogens 1A according to Regulation (EC) 1272/2008*: 

*  Regulation  (EC)  No  1272/2008  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  of  16  December  2008  on  classification,  labelling  and  packaging  of 
substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 
1999/45/EC,  and  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  1907/2006  (OJ  L  353, 
31.12.2008, p. 1–1355).; 

1.  (a) asbestos, actinolite, CAS* 77536-66-4 

(b) asbestos, amosite (grunerite), CAS 12172-73-5; 

(c) asbestos, anthophyllite, CAS 77536-67-5; 

(d) asbestos, chrysotile, CAS 12001-29-5; 

EN 

22 

  EN 

(e) asbestos, crocidolite, CAS 12001-28-4; 

(f) asbestos, tremolite, CAS 77536-68-6.’ 

*CAS: Chemical Abstract Service Number.’;  

(3) 

Article 6 is replaced by the following:  

‘Article 6 

For  all  activities  referred  to  in  Article  3(1),  the  exposure  of  workers  to  dust  arising 
from asbestos or materials containing asbestos at the place of work shall be reduced to 
a minimum and in any case to as low a level as is technically possible below the limit 
value laid down in Article 8, in particular through the following measures: 

(a)  the  number  of  workers  exposed  or  likely  to  be  exposed  to  dust  arising  from 
asbestos or materials containing asbestos shall be limited to the lowest possible figure; 

(b)  work  processes  shall  be  designed  so  as  not  to  produce  asbestos  dust  or,  if  that 
proves impossible, to avoid the release of asbestos dust into the air; 

(c) all premises and equipment involved in the treatment of asbestos shall be capable 
of being regularly and effectively cleaned and maintained; 

(d)  asbestos  or  dust-generating  asbestos-containing  material  shall  be  stored  and 
transported in suitable sealed packing; 

(e) waste shall be collected and removed from the place of work as soon as possible in 
suitable  sealed  packing  with  labels  indicating  that  it  contains  asbestos;  this  measure 
shall not apply to mining activities; such waste shall then be dealt with in accordance 
with Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council*. 

* Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 
November  2008  on  waste  and  repealing  certain  Directives  (OJ  L  312, 
22.11.2008, p. 3).’; 

(4) 

in Article 7(6) the first subparagraph is replaced by the following: 

‘Fibre  counting  shall  be  carried  out  by  phase-contrast  microscope  (PCM)  in 
accordance with the method recommended in 1997 by the World Health Organization 
(WHO)* or, wherever possible, any other method giving equivalent or better results, 
such as a method based on electron microscopy (EM). 

* Determination of airborne fibre concentrations. A recommended method, by 
phase-contrast  optical  microscopy  (membrane  filter  method),  WHO,  Geneva 
1997 (ISBN 92 4 154496 1).’;  

(5) 

Article 8 is replaced by the following: 

‘Article 8 

Employers  shall  ensure  that  no  worker  is  exposed  to  an  airborne  concentration  of 
asbestos in excess of 0.01 fibres per cm³ as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA).’ 

(6) 

in Article 11, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:  

‘Before  beginning  demolition  or  maintenance  work,  employers  shall  take,  if 
appropriate by obtaining information from the owners of the premises as well as from 
other  sources  of  information,  including  relevant  registers,  all  necessary  steps  to 
identify presumed asbestos-containing materials.’ 

(7) 

in Article 19, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following: 

EN 

23 

  EN 

 
 
‘The  employer  shall  enter  the  information  on  the  workers  engaged  in  the  activities 
referred to in Article 3(1) in a register. That information shall indicate the nature and 
duration  of  the  activity  and  the  exposure  to  which  they  have  been  subjected.  The 
doctor  and/or  the  authority  responsible  for  medical  surveillance  shall  have  access  to 
this register. Each worker shall have access to the results in the register which relate to 
him  or  her  personally.  The  workers  and/or  their  representatives  shall  have  access  to 
anonymous, collective information in the register. ’ 

Article 2 

1. 

Member  States  shall  bring  into  force  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative 
provisions  necessary  to  comply  with  this  Directive  by  two  years  after  the  date  of 
entry into force of this Directive at the latest. They shall  immediately communicate 
the text of those measures to the Commission.  

When  Member  States  adopt  those  measures,  they  shall  contain  a  reference  to  this 
Directive  or  be  accompanied  by  such  a  reference  on  the  occasion  of  their  official 
publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made. 

2. 

Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main measures 
of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive. 

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in 
the Official Journal of the European Union. 

Article 3 

This Directive is addressed to the Member States. 

Article 4 

Done at Brussels, 

For the European Parliament 
The President 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

24 

  EN