kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Europaudvalget 2022
KOM (2022) 0489
Offentligt

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}

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Table of contents

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

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

2.1

2.2

2.3

3.1

3.2

4.1

4.2

4.3

5.1

5.2

5.3

6.1

6.2

What is/are the problems?............................................................................................. 3

What are the problem drivers? ...................................................................................... 6

How will the problem evolve? .................................................................................... 12

Legal basis .................................................................................................................. 14

Subsidiarity: Necessity and added value of EU action ............................................... 15

General objectives ...................................................................................................... 16

Specific objectives ...................................................................................................... 16

Consistency with other EU policies ............................................................................ 16

Baseline Scenario........................................................................................................ 19

Options discarded at an early stage ............................................................................. 20

Policy options ............................................................................................................. 21

Analytical methodology .............................................................................................. 23

Impacts of the policy options ...................................................................................... 24

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.1

8.2

Overall impact of the preferred option........................................................................ 38

Subsidiarity, proportionality and REFIT .................................................................... 39

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

9.1 Monitoring arrangements ............................................................................................ 40

9.2 Evaluation arrangements............................................................................................. 42

ANNEX

PROCEDURAL INFORMATION

.......................................................................................... 43

ANNEX

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

...................................................................................... 48

ANNEX

WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW

?......................................................................................... 58

ANNEX

ANALYTICAL METHODS

.................................................................................................. 61

ANNEX

USES

ACTIVITIES AND EXPOSURES

................................................................................. 77

ANNEX

RELEVANT SECTORS

SME

S TEST

.............................................................................. 101

ANNEX

EXISTING GUIDELINES AND VOLUNTARY INDUSTRY INITIATIVES

................................ 112

ANNEX

MEASUREMENT METHOD

.............................................................................................. 115

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Glossary

ACM

APF

AWD

BAuA

CAD

CDB

CMD

EFBWW

EEC

ECHA

EODS

ERR

ETUI

FIEC

FoBiG

IARC

ISO

LOD

LOQ

NACE

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

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

n.e.c.

OEL

OSH

OSHA

PCM

PPE

RAC

RPA

REACH

RMM

RPE

SDG

SEM

SEM/EDXA

SME

TEM

TLV

TWA

WHO

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

NTRODUCTION

: P

OLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT

A strong social Europe calls for constant improvements towards safer and healthier work

for all. Over the last years, the European Union (EU) occupational safety and health

(OSH) policy and rules have contributed to considerably improving working conditions,

in particular workers’ protection from exposure to carcinogens and other hazardous

chemicals

. Limit values and other provisions have been set or revised for many

substances or groups of substances under the Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive

2004/37/EC and the Chemical Agents Directive 98/24/EC

The fight against occupational cancer remains a high priority in the area of OSH. The

Commission announced in the

European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan

and the

OSH

Strategic Framework for 2021-2027

the intention to present a legislative proposal to

further reduce workers’ exposure to asbestos. This was confirmed in the

letter of intent of

the State of the Union

address 2021 and the Commission Work Programme for 2022.

Furthermore, it is also highlighted as one of priorities under action 3 - A stronger

economy, social justice and jobs – in the Commission Communication on the follow-up

of the

Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFE).

The

Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan

supports the need for action in the field of protection

of workers against carcinogenic substances. Improved protection of workers exposed to

asbestos will also be important in the context of the green transition and the

implementation of the European Green Deal, including in particular the

Renovation

Wave for Europe.The

European Parliament adopted in October 2021 a

resolution with

recommendations to the Commission on protecting workers from asbestos (2019/2182

INL).

In it, the Parliament calls for the lowering of the existing limit value (0.1

fibres/cm

) for asbestos to 0.001 fibres/cm

. The European Economic and Social

Committee has put forward the same call in its own-initiative opinion “Working

with

Asbestos in Energy Renovation”

adopted in 2019.

In response, the Commission has adopted its

Communication on working towards an

asbestos-free future: a European approach to addressing the health risks of asbestos

. It

addresses the public-health risk stemming from asbestos in a holistic manner, presenting

EU-level measures to tackle asbestos throughout its life cycle. This initiative covered by

this impact assessment has therefore a limited scope. It aims to address the protection of

workers at workplace.

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.

Since 2017,

substances were addressed under the Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive 2004/37/EC

and for the same period

substances under Chemical Agents Directive

COM(2022) 488

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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

. The indirect costs may reach as much as EUR 334 billion each year

. The long-term

care aspect is particularly important for occupational cancer. Good OSH is essential not

only to minimise these costs, but also to reduce disruptions at work due to absenteeism

and to contribute to productivity and competitiveness.

This initiative will contribute to the

sustainable development goals

(SDG) on good health

and well-being (3rd

goal),

decent work and economic growth (8th

goal),

to industry,

innovation and infrastructure (9th

goal)

and to responsible production and consumption

(12th

goal).

In the EU the protection of workers against risks related to exposure to asbestos is

regulated by the Asbestos at Work Directive 2009/148/EC (AWD)

This initiative aims at enhancing the effectiveness of the occupational exposure limit

(OEL) value under the directive by updating it on the basis of new scientific knowledge.

Since the last revision of the asbestos OEL in 2003, scientific evidence has demonstrated

that asbestos does not have a safe exposure level, which means that any exposure to

asbestos may eventually cause an asbestos-related disease.

It is supported by the last in-depth evaluation of the AWD and in line with the latest

assessment of the implementation of the EU occupational safety and health (OSH)

directives for the period from 2013 to 2017. In addition, the tripartite Advisory

Committee for Safety and Health at Work (ACSH) unanimously agreed on the need to

lower the current OEL.

For this impact assessment, the Commission contracted a study

to Risk & Policy

Analysts Ltd (RPA), hereafter “external study” or “RPA (2021)”, in order to collect the

most recent information on asbestos with the view to analyse the health, socio-economic

and environmental impacts of a possible amendment of the AWD. Due to the limitations

of available data, the estimation for some sectors relies on few sources and needs to be

taken with caution. The lack of data is also acknowledged in the most recent update

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.

Idem.

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).

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.

SWD(2021) 148 final

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

the national implementation reports where several Member States mention challenges in

collecting data (incl. lack of available data). For example, Hungary, Malta, Portugal and

Slovenia mention, in particular, the lack of data on the number of cancer deaths that can

be attributed to occupational exposure to carcinogens such as asbestos.

Given the level of scientific and technical knowledge required to identify measures

ensuring adequate protection of workers while being practically feasible for companies,

the Commission bases its proposals in this area on opinions developed by the tripartite

ACSH. The opinions of ACSH take into account the scientific basis, which is

indispensable to underpin OSH legislation.

In order to establish this scientific basis for the ACSH, the Commission sought advice

from the Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) of the European Chemicals Agency

(ECHA). RAC-ECHA concluded in their scientific assessment

that asbestos is a non-

threshold carcinogen and consequently, no health-based OEL was identified and no OEL

was suggested. Instead, an exposure-risk relationship was derived, expressing the excess

risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma mortality (combined) as a function of the fibre

concentration in the air. The purpose of this impact assessment is to assess whether there

is a need to revise the level of protection offered by the AWD, and if yes, which would

be the most appropriate level to take this forward. The Commission will consider the

opinion of ACSH together with the contributions received through the different channels

for consultation as well the recommendations of the European Parliament resolution.

2.1

ROBLEM DEFINITION

What is the problem?

Occupational cancer is the main cause of work-related deaths in the EU

, being

primarily caused by exposures to carcinogenic substances such as asbestos. Asbestos is a

highly dangerous carcinogenic agent. Its airborne fibres are very resistant and when

inhaled could lead to, for example, mesothelioma

and lung cancer, with a lag between

exposure to asbestos and the first signs of disease of as much as 30 years. 78% of cancers

recognised as occupational cancer in the Member States are asbestos related

RAC Opinion on scientific evaluation of occupational exposure limits for Asbestos. ECHA/RAC/A77-O-

0000006981-66-01/F

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#!/.

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).

European Occupational Diseases Statistics (EODS) - Experimental statistics - Eurostat (europa.eu)

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

For mesothelioma, there is no cure and patients have an average life expectancy between

4 and 18 months after diagnosis

Asbestos exposure is responsible for 92% of the

mesothelioma cases

Mesothelioma alone already accounts for approximately 15% of all work-related cancer

deaths

, 39% of the new work-related recognised cancer cases and 50% of asbestos

related cancer cases

Lung cancer, which is the second commonly diagnosed form of cancer for men and the

third for women, is associated with relatively low survival rate after diagnosis when

compared with other common cancer types for men (prostate) and women (breast and

colorectal cancers)

. Lung cancer accounts for 44% of all new recognised occupational

cancers with asbestos accounting for 88%

of total new recognised occupational lung

cancers.

There were an estimated 66 808 deaths attributable to occupational exposure to asbestos

for the EU-27 countries in 2016

. In 2019, the estimates show a total of 71 750 deaths in

the EU-27 from occupational exposure to asbestos

. Those figures reflect the effect of

past exposures, given the long latency of asbestos-related diseases, but also confirms the

severity of the consequences of exposure to this hazard.

It is estimated that currently 4.1 to 7.3 million workers are exposed to asbestos, with the

major share (3.5 to 5.5 million) being workers in a situation of sporadic and low intensity

exposure

The progressive restriction of the use of asbestos in the EU started in 1988 with the

prohibition or restriction of crocidolite (also called blue asbestos)

. Since 2005

, all

forms of asbestos are banned in the EU. Despite of this, there is a substantial legacy

problem since asbestos is still present in many older buildings. These are likely to be

renovated, adapted or demolished over the coming years. The exposure of workers to

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.

See footnote 12

See footnote 4

See footnote 12

Health at a Glance: Europe 2020: State of Health in the EU Cycle

WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury

See Footnote 17

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

See footnote 7

Directive 83/478/CEE du Conseil du 19 septembre 1983. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1983/478/oj

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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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

progresses

Ineffective prevention of the exposure to asbestos also entails negative consequences for

businesses. Companies that take appropriate measures may have a competitive

disadvantage over those that do not. Moreover, although not immediately, due to the

delayed consequences of ineffective prevention, future businesses are expected to bear

higher costs and reduced productivity due to absenteeism and loss of expertise.

For Member States, it translates into increased social security costs (e.g. through higher

costs for medical treatment and work incapacity) and missed tax revenues. Recent

estimates indicate that the cost of work-related cancers

alone amounts to EUR 119.5

billion

every year, from which between EUR 35 to 76 billion are costs due to lung

cancers caused by asbestos exposure

The problem tree below summarises the main drivers behind the problem and the

resulting consequences for workers, businesses, and Member States:

drivers

External market

driver



Renovation of old

buildings to

accelerate with

Green Deal



Internal market

driver

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

problem

Asbestos is the major contributor to occupational

cancer; it is the main cause of work-related deaths

consequences

for businesses:



Higher costs (absenteeism;

need for staff replacement,

loss of experience)



Reduced staff productivity



Lack of level playing field

for Member States:



Higher social

security costs



Forgone tax

revenues

for workers:



Risk of life loss (premature

deaths)



Personal health problems



Higher health-related costs



Reduced family income

Renovation Wave: doubling the renovation rate to cut emissions, boost recovery and reduce energy

poverty. COM(2020) 662 final

Reduced absenteeism, productivity losses and insurance payments

EU-OSHA, The economics of OSH, 2017. Available at:

https://visualisation.osha.europa.eu/osh-costs

Applying percentages of lung cancer mentioned before to the costs.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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 States

Asbestos is found in ships, train coaches, aeroplanes, and military vehicles, but more

importantly, in public and industrial buildings and private homes. Before the asbestos

ban, there were over three thousand uses of asbestos. The biggest share of asbestos in the

EU was used for the manufacture of asbestos cement products (70-80%). The rest was

used for other construction products, floor coverings, brake and clutch linings, asbestos

textiles, asbestos cardboards, insulating board, spray insulation, filter materials, etc.

Consumption varied by Member State with a tendency to higher consumption in Western

Europe in the 1950-1970s and higher consumption in Eastern European Member States

in the 1990-2000s, as the ban on asbestos followed in some cases their accession to the

EU. More detail on the historical trend in the use of asbestos per country is provided in

annex 5.

According to the response from the German authorities to the stakeholder consultation

carried out by RPA, it is estimated that in Germany approx. 25-30% of the building

products containing asbestos are still installed. It is also estimated that, between 1952 and

1997, 1.75 million tonnes of raw asbestos were used in the manufacture of asbestos-

containing products and in industrial installations in Poland and that some 1.2 billion m

of these products still existed in 2017

Asbestos can be found in several forms in buildings all over the EU

. More than 220

million building units, representing 85% of the EU’s building stock, were built before

2001

and, therefore, before the use of asbestos was banned in all EU Member States.

Those buildings will be renovated (either for maintenance or aesthetic purposes or for

energy efficiency reasons) or demolished and replaced by new construction. Figure 1

gives an indication of the age composition of the EU building stock, while figure 2 shows

distribution of asbestos per dwelling across Member States.

The 'Renovation Wave' under the European Green Deal (external market driver), with a

focus on making the buildings more energy-efficient and sustainable, will accelerate the

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

Pawelec (2017). Rehabilitation of buildings and removal of asbestos. Presentation at BUILD2LC,

Vilnius; as reported in RPA (2021).

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).

A Renovation Wave for Europe - greening our buildings, creating jobs, improving lives.

SWD/2020/550 final

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Further information on the presence of asbestos in the residential building stock at EU

regional level is available in a JRC recent study

To tackle the problem of building stock legacy the Commission announces in its

Communication on working towards an asbestos-free future: a European approach to

addressing the health risks of asbestos

a legislative proposal on mandatory screening of

asbestos in buildings.

However, independently of the state and stock of asbestos in EU, there is a need to

ensure workers protection. The risk of exposure is mostly related to the handling of

asbestos and dispersion of asbestos fibres during construction works, such as during

renovation and demolition.

97% of the workers exposed to asbestos belong to the

construction sector.

There is exposure to asbestos also in other economic sectors (e.g., waste management;

mining and quarrying; tunnel excavation

; and maintenance and sampling and analysis),

with waste management being the one with the highest number of estimated exposed

workers among those (2% of all exposed workers). For the stakeholder consultation

carried out in the framework of the supporting study, Hazardous Waste Europe,

representing the hazardous treatment installations, indicated that exposure may typically

take place when the waste is packed e.g. in waste collection points. Potential exposure of

the workers in waste collection points may happen by cleaning procedures e.g. when

waste is disposed in improper containment.

In addition, the risk of exposure also occurs when drilling platforms, ships

, and other

transport means (e.g. trains and aircraft) with asbestos insulation are repaired or disposed

of. The Belgian railway company Infrabel estimated in 2020 that two-thirds of its fleet of

2,162 wagons contains small concentrations of asbestos fibres

. Madrid Metro adopted

in 2018 an Asbestos Removal Plan, agreed with the main trade unions, to resolve the

situation caused by the asbestos problem. The plan concerns both the rolling stock, and

infrastructure/facilities

Table 1 shows the estimated number of exposed workers as well as the route of exposure

and health effects of asbestos exposure. In terms of gender, 97% of workers in the

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.

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.

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.

See footnote 7

Informe Corporativo 2020, Metro Madrid.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

construction sector are men

. Although there is very few disaggregated data by gender

studies show that mesothelioma in women accounts for about 20% of the cases and that

these are mainly due to domestic exposure to asbestos fibres brought into the home by

exposed workers (family members)

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

annex 5.

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

Exposed workforce

(number of workers)

Health effects caused

Major occupational

exposure route

4 100 000 - 7 300 000

Lung cancer

Mesothelioma

Laryngeal cancer

Ovarian cancer

Inhalation

Source: External study. RPA (2021)

Asbestos can also cause other health effects, such as pulmonary fibrosis (asbestosis) and

pleural plaques. According to the scientific assessment, asbestosis occurs only at

exposure levels higher than the current exposure limit. Thus, it is assumed that new cases

of asbestosis are due to past exposure to higher concentrations. Concerning pleural

plaques, while they may occur already at lower exposure levels, their clinical relevance is

unclear

40,41

. 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

Eurostat. Jobs still split along gender lines

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).

Occupation and mesothelioma in Sweden; Dan Med J 61/9; Surveillance-Mésothéliome

Clinical relevance indicates whether the results of a study are meaningful or not for several stakeholders.

See footnote 9

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

at work and identifying them as occupational cancers, which could lead to

underestimation of the disease burden.

Table 2: Current and future disease burden related to occupational exposure to

asbestos due to existing exposure situations (number of cases in EU 27)

Health effects caused

Quantified current disease

burden*

(estimation based on 2020

data for current types of

exposure situations)

336

370

Future disease burden

estimated over a 40

years period**

Lung cancer and

mesothelioma

Laryngeal and ovarian

cancer

TOTAL

804

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/cm

)

Source: External study. RPA (2021)

The estimates above relate only to the sectors and occupations where exposure to

asbestos currently occurs, mainly handling of asbestos and dispersion of asbestos fibres

during construction works. The reason is that those sectors and occupations are the only

ones relevant for the baseline scenario and the analysis of the options.

However, the actual number of cases is much higher if one takes into account the total

burden of past occupational exposure to asbestos (i.e., in occupations where exposure

does not happen anymore). Between 2013 and 2019, there were 9866 recognised cases of

mesothelioma and 9816 of lung cancers due to exposure to asbestos in the EU

. The

recognised cases are significantly lower than the actual number of deaths due to

asbestos

2.2.2 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

See footnote 12

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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

the responsible authority of the Member State is mandatory

, and

exposure must be

reduced to a minimum

and in any case below the fixed binding limit value. If the limit

value is exceeded, the reasons must be identified, and the employer must take appropriate

risk management measures (RMM) to remedy the situation before work restarts. It is also

specified that in case the limit value cannot be observed by other means, employers shall

provide adequate respiratory and other personal protective equipment.

The

current occupational exposure limit value (OEL) in the AWD of 0.1 fibres/cm³ was

set in 2003 based on the scientific and technology knowledge available at that time. The

AWD further states that its minimum requirements should be reviewed based on

experience acquired and on technology developments in the relevant areas.

As a direct consequence of the asbestos ban and provisions for protection of workers

under the AWD, a reduction of the number of cancer cases and deaths from exposure to

asbestos is already happening

. The downward trend is also reflected by the EU index

(main indicator for the European Occupational Diseases Statistics (EODS) data

collection) of occupational disease for lung cancer and mesothelioma which dropped to

86.3 in 2019 compared with the starting point (100) for the base year 2013

Following the new scientific and technologic developments since 2003, the tripartite

ACSH, in November 2021, reached a consensus on the need to substantially revise

downwards the existing binding occupational exposure limit to better protect workers’

health and safety

and thus reduce the probability for asbestos-related diseases to

happen.

The most recent in-depth evaluation of the AWD (2017

ex post

evaluation of the EU

OSH directives

) concluded that the directive remains highly relevant and effective

according to the available evidence. However, the evaluation supporting study concludes

that there is evidence to support a lowering of the limit to increase the ongoing relevance

and effectiveness of the AWD and it is suggested that this issue is explored in more

depth. It also reports a very important reduction in the use of asbestos across the Member

States

The revision of the OEL is also in line with the latest assessment of the implementation

of the EU occupational safety and health (OSH) directives for the period from 2013 to

2017, presented in the staff working document accompanying the EU strategic

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

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).

Eurostat, EU index of occupational diseases (2013=100) – experimental statistics [HSW_OCC_INA]

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

SWD (2017) 10 final.

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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

framework on health and safety at work 2021-2027 (SWD (2021) 148 final).The RAC-

ECHA scientific opinion necessary to reconsider the asbestos OEL was adopted in June

2021

. According to it, asbestos does not have a safe exposure level, which means that

any exposure to asbestos may eventually cause an asbestos-related disease. Thus, it is

presented as the relation between exposure levels and the associated risk (exposure-risk

relationship).

Acknowledging the development of the scientific knowledge, four EU Member States

have already reduced their limit value. As shown in table 3, workers in the EU are

subject to different levels of protection. Three Member States have implemented binding

OELs below the current EU OEL, and in one Member State there is a limit value

corresponding to an acceptable concentration in addition to the binding limit value. The

remaining EU Member States have the same OEL as the current EU OEL.

Table 3: National OELs in EU Member States

Country

OEL

(fibres/cm3)

European Union

0.1

EU countries with stricter OEL:

Netherlands

0.002

Comments

Introduced in 2003

Asbestos fibres of the chrysotile type

and amphibolic asbestos 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 exposure concentration

corresponding to the proposed tolerable

(binding limit value) cancer risk 4:1

000.

Denmark

France

0.003

0.01

Germany

0.1

Workplace exposure concentration

corresponding

the

proposed

preliminary acceptable cancer risk

4:100 000. Introduced in 2008

(*) While the current binding OEL in Germany is 0.1 fibres/cm3, the mandatory guidelines

require measures that are considered in practice to bring the exposure concentration below

the 'acceptance level' (0.01 fibres/cm3).

0.01(*)

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.

RAC Opinion. See footnote 9

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

On the basis of notifications received by national authorities

, the current increasing

trend in the amount of asbestos-containing waste, the number of certified workers and the

lifespan of the asbestos cement materials (70-80% of asbestos in EU), it is assumed that

the number of exposed workers will increase by 4% every year for the next 10 years.

Then the level is assumed to stabilise in years 11 – 25 (2032 - 2046), and finally, the

number of exposed workers will decrease fairly quickly with an assumed annual decrease

of 10% in years 26 – 40 (2046 - 2061)

. By 2061, virtually all asbestos-containing

materials will be removed.

The Commission's initiative on Renovation Wave, aiming at energy performance and

consumption of buildings, improving air quality and health and living conditions, would

lead to a 1% annual energy renovation rate for 2021-2022, and an increase to 1.2% per

year in 2023-2025 before stabilising at least 2% per year in 2026-2029. To achieve these

benefits and objectives and to achieve climate neutrality of the buildings stock, buildings

need to be renovated. The Commission estimates the potential for an additional 160 000

green jobs in the construction sector in the EU by 2030. Since 85% of buildings,

especially the worst performing buildings are constructed by using asbestos, this would

lead to an increase in the number of exposed workers, although modest in comparison to

the 4-7 million workers estimated to already being exposed to asbestos.

Estimations on the numbers of cancer cases and their associated health costs over a 40-

years period in case no action is taken are contained in the table 4 (baseline scenario).

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

Expected

no. of

cancer

cases

884

Expected

no. of

deaths

Estimated

health costs

(net present

value)

€228 million –

€438 million

Next 10 years: +4 % per year

11 – 25 years: no changes

26 – 40 years: -10 % per year

707

Source: External study. RPA (2021

)

As a result of current exposure, 884 cases of cancer

will occur over the next 40 years

(or on average 20 cases per year in the EU-27). It is also predicted that 707 workers will

die from cancer attributed to occupational exposure to asbestos over the same period. In

terms of health costs, between EUR 228 and 438 million are associated with the

estimated cancer cases.

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.

See footnote 7

Including mesothelioma, lung, laryngeal and ovarian cancer.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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.

3.1

HY SHOULD THE

ACT

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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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

turnover

), the level playing field for enterprises is expected to improve. Companies

operating in the different EU Member States can further benefit from a streamlining of

the applicable limit values, potentially providing for savings as common solutions can be

adopted across facilities, as opposed to having to design site-specific solutions to meet

different OEL requirements.

the construction

sector, workers move from one site to another, very often in different

countries. The available figures on the number of posted workers show that of the 2.05

million posted workers in 2015, around 36% or 730 000 workers were in the construction

sector

. Thus, EU-level action will likely bring fairer conditions for those workers and

also a fairer distribution of healthcare costs for the different Members States (while

posted workers would be exposed to asbestos in country A, related illness costs occurring

years later are borne by their sending country B).

Furthermore, the revision of limit values is very complex and requires a high level of

scientific expertise. An important advantage of the revision of the OEL at EU level is that

Analytical Report - Strengthening the Internal Market for construction - November 2018.

Posted_workers in the EU

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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.

4.1

BJECTIVES

: W

HAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED

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 Union

56,57

. 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 Rights

, and to prevent

disease and death caused by work-related cancer and other health problems according to

the second key objective of the new EU Strategic framework on health and safety at work

2021-2027.

4.2

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 Rights

REACH Regulation

The REACH Regulation

, in force since 2007, establishes among others two distinct EU

regulatory approaches that are restrictions and authorisations.

OJ C 115, 9.5.2008, p. 114–116

OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 391–407

See footnote 1

OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 391–407

See footnote 20

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Since 1988 the placing on the market and use of crocidolite and of products containing it

has been prohibited, and the placing on the market of products containing other asbestos

forms has been restricted. Several amendments took place until the 2005 ban on the

manufacture, placing on the market and use of all forms of asbestos, and of articles and

mixtures containing them added intentionally

Together, the AWD and the REACH Regulation are relevant for workers protection from

the risks of exposure to asbestos.

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

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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.

HAT 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

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.

Scientific Opinion

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Table 5: Exposure-risk relationship

Air concentration of asbestos (fibres/cm

)

as measured by PCM

Excess life-time cancer risk (cases

per 100 000 exposed workers)

1.2

2.5

6.2

125

0.001

0.002

0.005

0.01

0.02

0.05

0.1

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/cm

, while the Workers Interest Group (WIG) preferred a value of 0.001

f/cm

(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 initiatives

, the development of new

technologies

and any other relevant factors.

Under the baseline scenario, the EU OEL will remain at 0.1 fibres/cm

. The summary of

the no policy change option is presented in table 6.

The exposure-risk relationship is based on fibre measurements according to the Phase Contrast

Microscopy (PCM) method of WHO (1997).

Mainly the development of guidelines for good practice for working with asbestos.

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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Table 6: Baseline scenario over 40 years

Types of cancer caused

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)

804 mesothelioma and lung cancers

80 laryngeal and ovarian cancers

707

€228 million – €438 million

Not quantified

No. of exposed workers

Change in future exposure level

Change in future no. of exposed workers

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 exposure

and exposure from naturally occurring

asbestos at concentrations close to 0.001 fibres/cm

or lower

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

stakeholders

However, guidance documents by themselves would not be considered effective enough

in reaching the objectives of this initiative. They are complementary and provide an

added value to OELs.

5.2.2 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

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.

See for example WKÖ reply to the initiative’s call for evidence.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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 ECHA

the opinion from the ACSH

, as well as the OELs in place in the different Member

States. The scientific evaluation provides a solid evidence base while the ACSH opinion

provides important information for the successful implementation of the revised OEL.

It should be noted that there is no OEL value below which workers would not be at risk

when exposed to asbestos.

See footnote 38 and section 4 in annex 1.

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

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Table 7: Options matrix of OELs

OEL

Fibres/cm

Option 1:

Baseline scenario

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

0.1

0.01

0.002

0.001

Comments

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/cm

and 0.02 f/cm

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/cm

levels do not seem to

be technically feasible given the latest available technology. An OEL at 0 f/cm

is also

not possible due to the existing background

levels. Asbestos is present in many settings

and exposure can also take place through naturally occurring asbestos present in the

environment

. Ambient asbestos concentrations in rural and urban areas in the EU are

therefore expected to be higher than 0 f/cm³

. Intermediate OEL values between the

suggested ones by the ACSH were not considered by the steering group of the external

study and thus no analysis of the costs and benefits of such OELs was possible. Such

OELs were also not proposed by any stakeholder or Member State.

Setting an OEL below the current one implies that companies might need to move to

more effective risk management measures in order to comply with the lower level. This

means, in practice, investing in protective equipment (e.g. masks with different filtering

levels) and/or implementing other measures, such as vacuum cleaning and dust

suppression techniques.

Options 2 to 4 could also have another practical implication in relation to their

monitoring, as they might require replacing the methodology for measurement of

asbestos fibres in the air, from the broadly used phase contrast microscopy to the more

sensitive electron microscopy methodology.

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

Refer to point 5.2.1 General population of the

ECHA-RAC opinion

Annex 1.

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)

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

6.1

HAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS

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 appropriate

The health benefits of avoided cancer cases and deaths have been expressed in monetary

terms by applying standard valuation methods, in line with the Better Regulation

Toolbox guidance. Method 1 is the application of a single willingness to pay (WTP)

value to each case and Method 2 is the use of disability adjusted life years (DALYs) and

their monetisation. Both estimates monetise the same number of avoided cases and use

identical methods for the monetisation of direct (healthcare, informal care, disruption for

employers) and indirect (productivity/lost earnings

) impacts but use different

approaches to assign monetary values to intangible effects (reduced quality of life, pain

and suffering, etc.). These health benefits of implementing the revised OEL are

calculated in terms of the costs of ill health avoided. Not all health impacts could be

monetised, due to a lack of available information allowing its quantification.

The estimate of the costs was made based on literature research and data obtained from

stakeholders. It considers the following factors: the risk management measures (RMMs)

needed to comply with the proposed OEL, the costs of these RMMs for each company,

the life span of the RMMs and the number of companies. The costs of the RMMs are

driven by the use of protective equipment

and the staff costs of operating vacuum

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).

This is not the case where lost earnings are already taken into account in the willingness to pay estimate

in published literature.

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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

cleaning and dust suppression equipment

. In addition, the monitoring costs for options

2 to 4 include the incremental costs of replacing phase-contrast microscopy (PCM) by

electron microscopy (EM) analysis.

The benefits and costs of possible OELs are measured against the baseline, meaning that

only marginal costs and marginal benefits are considered (i.e., additional costs imposed

by the different OEL scenarios on top of those that businesses would already have to bear

under the baseline in order to comply with their existing obligations). Unless the contrary

is specified, they are expressed in net present values, using 2021 as a reference.

As the change to the Danish OEL intervened after the completion of the supporting

study, the costs and benefits for option 2 are slightly overestimated.

More information about the analytical methodology, including the sensitivity analyses

performed, is available in annex 4.

6.2

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/cm

) and option 3 (0.002 fibres/cm

) 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/cm

) 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

Avoided cases

relation to the

existing situation

No benefits in

WTP

relation to the

(Method 1)

Benefits

existing situation

(€

No benefits in

million)

DALYs

relation to the

(Method 2).

existing situation

Source: External study. RPA (2021)

Option 2

0.01

fibre/cm

663

Option 3

0.002

fibre/cm

831

Option 4

0.001

fibre/cm

858

323

405

418

166

208

215

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

It is assumed that no new vacuum cleaning and dust suppression equipment will be needed but that staff

will spend more time using it.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

In addition to the direct benefits to workers and their families described above, indirect

benefits should also be mentioned although they have not been quantified or monetised.



Family members of workers heavily exposed to asbestos face an increased risk of

developing mesothelioma. This risk would result from exposure to asbestos fibres

brought into the home on the shoes, clothes, skin and hair of workers. Therefore,

the introduction of more efficient protective equipment and increased use of

existing RMMs

that will be required in order to comply with options 2 to 4

could help to decrease such risks.

Measures

to prevent the generation and spread of dust in demolition works can

also be positive for people living or working in the surroundings.



6.2.1.2 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 predicted

. Nonetheless, it is possible that some

jobs may move from companies not specialised in asbestos handling dealing with

activities connected with sporadic and low intensity exposure (almost any type of

craftsman, including plumbers, carpenters, electricians and bricklayers, as well as general

caretakers of buildings) to companies specialised in demolition or more specifically in

asbestos removal.

As companies not specialised in asbestos handling will most likely take on less of this

work, there may be some resulting redundancies, but new jobs would be created in the

more specialised companies that would likely carry out this work instead. The possibility

for this to happen increases with the reduction of the OEL, with option 2 (0.01 fibre/cm

)

being the one that will have less impact and option 4 (0.001 fibre/cm

) 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

E.g., more time spent using vacuum cleaners or application of various other dust suppression techniques

in the construction and building sector

See footnote 7

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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 contracts

or workers under health surveillance. Danish authorities also do not

expect a significant increase of the number of notifications (short-term and low impacts

from asbestos) as a consequence of its recently lowered OEL. However, such potential

impact has been quantified

Both the costs of new RMMs and the costs related to the waiver (notifications and health

surveillance) count for the vast majority of the total compliance costs. Other costs that

could arise would be much more limited. These include the costs of training to ensure the

correct use of the new protective equipment and the correct follow-up of the new risk

management measures put in place, as well as, and monitoring costs

. The amount of

estimated one-off costs is limited. Around 90% of the calculated costs are recurrent.

Table 9: Main costs for businesses (million EUR)

Option 2

0.01

fibre/cm

12 492

7 290

650

2 180

Option 3

0.002

fibre/cm

52 108

14 570

1 310

4 350

Option 4

0.001

fibre/cm

58 282

21 860

2 610

6 530

Additional RMMs

Health surveillance

Notification

Low estimate

High estimate

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.

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.

Costs of planning, sampling, analysis and reporting.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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/cm

). For options 3

(0.002 fibre/cm

) and 4 (0.001 fibre/cm

) they amount to some EUR 52 billion and EUR

58 billion, respectively. The estimated costs of notification and health surveillance are

much lower. However, they are subject to more uncertainty for the reasons mentioned

above. In addition, the notification system is administered by the responsible authority of

the Member State (Article 4 AWD) and it is therefore difficult to assess if and to what

extent lowering the OEL will significantly impact on the number of notified contracts or

workers under health surveillance, nor is possible to anticipate the potential changes

Member States might decide to introduce in their system to respond to a potential

increase of notifications (or, more generally, due to the growing digitisation and

development of eGoverment services).

In understanding the costs, it is also important to take into account that they spread over a

period of 40 years and represent the total costs for all the companies dealing with

asbestos in the EU (around 1.55 million companies). As shown in table 9, the average

costs per company over 40 years are around EUR 15 000, EUR 46 000 and EUR 57 000

under options 2, 3 and 4, respectively. These average costs are expected to be higher for

companies dealing more intensively and frequently with asbestos in articles such as

trains, vehicles, vessels or aircraft (i.e. around 350 companies out of the total of more

than 1.5 million companies dealing with asbestos). They would deal with costs between

EUR 355 221 and EUR 2 577 759 over 40 years, depending on the options. On the other

side, companies in the building and construction sector, not specialised in asbestos

handling, dealing with activities connected with sporadic and low-intensity exposure

would face significantly lower average costs over 40 years (between EUR 12 266 and

EUR 38 280, depending on the options).

To assess the proportionality of such costs, total compliance costs are put in relation to

the turnover (‘cost/turnover ratio’

) at companies’ level. The ratio of costs/turnover for

small companies is greater than for medium and large companies under all options. As

shown in table 6 of annex 6, under option 2, almost all companies would have a

cost/turnover ratio lower than 1%, which means that that option should not have a

significant impact on business. Only small companies from three sectors (repair of

electrical equipment, repair and maintenance of ships and boats, and maintenance and

repair of motor vehicles, i.e. 0.02% of all companies dealing with asbestos), would face a

cost/turnover ratio between 2 and 4%. Under options 3 and 4, the impacts would be

higher and some companies (namely in the repair of electrical equipment sector) might

have to dedicate up to 28.5% of their turnover to compliance costs. The costs remain

largely proportionate in the sector concentrating most of the concerned companies

(construction

). In that sector, only for small companies under the NACE ‘Other

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.

99% of the over 1.55 million companies that are estimated to be involved in work with asbestos belong

to the construction sector.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

building completion and finishing’ activity category, the cost/turnover ratio would be

over 10% for the two stricter options (12% for option 3 and 13% for option 4).

More information on the cost/turnover ratio per sector and size of companies is available

in Annex 6.

The Netherlands, France, Germany and Denmark already have OELs at least 10 times

lower than the current EU limit value. Companies operating in these three Member States

should therefore not face additional costs under option 2

. With regard to option 3,

companies operating in France and Germany and Denmark would face additional costs,

while under option 4, companies in all Member States would have additional costs to

comply with the associated OEL.

Although more limited in quantitative terms, setting a stricter EU OEL for asbestos could

also bring benefits to businesses, such us decreasing payments related to sick leave,

reduced absenteeism or decreasing insurance premiums. As shown in table 9, companies’

saved costs are estimated between EUR 1.7 million to EUR 2.1 million, which means

that the choice of the option would not have a strong influence on the level of benefits for

companies. Furthermore, other benefits that cannot be easily monetised should also be

considered such as the indirect effects on the reputation of the sectors and associated

companies (asbestos could be less perceived as a risky line of work associated with

health issues).

6.2.2.2 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 customers

. Consequently, the latter

could be forced to postpone or avoid asbestos removal, which could have an effect on

some companies, in particular among the small companies, which could be forced to

cease their activities. However, experience in Germany, where a stricter OEL is effective

since 2008, does not seem to point in that direction. According to the external study, the

increase in the amount of asbestos-containing waste in recent years would indicate a

more general increase in removal activities.

Therefore, no significant number of companies is expected to cease their activities under

the different options envisaged in this impact assessment. However, some companies

operating on activities connected with sporadic and low intensity exposure (almost any

type of craftsman, including plumbers, carpenters, electricians and bricklayers, as well as

general caretakers of buildings) might decide not to make investments in risk

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.

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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Switzerland (0.01 fibres/cm

) and Japan (0.03

and 0.003

fibres/cm

)

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 notifications

. Usually, national inspectors

organise visits in companies to ensure the employers’ compliance with several OSH

provisions (for example, workplace transport, slips and trips, machinery safety, stress)

rather than only checking the conformity with the OELs. Thus, is not expected that

additional resources on enforcement, a Member State competence, are needed as a result

of the adoption of a stricter OEL was not possible to determine although will receive (or

demand) greater resourcing and priority because of an OEL being set. Table 8 below

shows the estimated benefits and costs over a period of 40 years (2021-2061). While

costs are higher than benefits for all options, it needs to be noted that annual net costs

vary between EUR 35 and 105 million for all 27 Member States. In addition, as for the

notification costs estimated for companies, the costs attributed to the processing of new

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.

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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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/cm

€3 400 000

€750 000*

Option 3

0.002 fibre/cm

€4 300 000

€1 300 000

Option 4

0.001 fibre/cm

€4 500 000

€1 350 000

Benefits

Costs:

Transposition

Guidelines

Enforcement,

monitoring and

adjudication costs:

Low estimate

High estimate

Net benefit (benefits –

costs)

Low estimate

High estimate

€ 420 000 000

€ 1 400 000 000

-€ 418 100 000

-€ 1 398 100 000

€ 840 000 000

€2 800 000 000

-€ 838 300 000

-€ 2 798 300 000

€ 1 680 000 000

€4 200 000 000

-€ 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 buildings

. Due to these low

release levels the environmental impacts of asbestos are believed to be relatively low in

spite of asbestos fibres persistence and toxicity. In addition, further RMMs, due to

comply with a stricter OEL may help to marginally improve environmental exposure to

asbestos however significant differences are unlikely to be recognised.

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

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

6.2.3.1 Climate Change impacts

Asbestos has the property of absorbing carbon dioxide molecules dissolved in rainwater

or floating through the air

, thus can play a role in climate change. However, as releases

into the environment will be low, this initiative is not expected to have an impact on

climate change.

On the other hand, extreme weather conditions due to climate change may increase

erosion effects of the still existing asbestos materials (e.g. roofs sheets and other external

building materials containing asbestos).

As companies could pass additional costs from stricter OELs to consumers, potential

negative impacts on renovation and green objectives (e.g. postponed renovations and

missed energy savings) should be considered. Those negative impacts will be greater the

more stringent the OEL is.

6.2.4 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

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/10/06/1009374/asbestos-could-be-a-powerful-weapon-against-

climate-change-you-read-that-right/

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

are not expected to be significant. No administrative cost savings are expected for

citizens.

The table below summarises all the assessed impacts.

Table 11: Multi-criteria analysis on asbestos (all impacts over 40 years and

additional to the baseline)

Impact

Stakeholders

affected

0.01

OEL options (fibres/cm

)

0.002

0.001

Economic impacts

Direct costs – Compliance, monitoring and administrative costs

Risk management measures

and discontinuation costs Companies € 12 492 million € 52 108 million € 58 282 million

(one-off and recurrent)

Health surveillance

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

Notification:

Low estimate

Companies € 650 million € 1 310 million € 2 610 million

High estimate

€ 2 180 million € 4 350 million € 6 530 million

Training costs (on the correct

€ 530 million € 1 100 million € 2 000 million

Companies

application of new RMM).

Monitoring (sampling and

€ 110 million

€ 560 million

€ 640 million

Companies

analysis)

Direct costs - administrative

€ 15 million

€ 30 million

€ 60 million

Companies

burdens (linked to monitoring)

Total Direct Costs

Low estimate

Companies € 21 087 million € 69 678 million € 85 452 million

High estimate

€ 22 617 million € 72 718million € 89 372 million

Total Direct costs

< € 15 000

< € 46 000

< € 57 000

Companies

(average per company)

Direct costs - enforcement costs

Transposition costs

Public

€ 0.75 million

€ 1.3 million

€ 1.4 million

authorities

Costs of changing guidelines

Public

€ 0.75 million

€ 1.3 million

€ 1.4 million

authorities

Enforcement,

monitoring,

adjudication costs

Public

Low estimate

authorities

€ 420 million

€ 840 million € 1 680 million

High estimate

€ 1 400 million € 2 800 million € 4 200 million

Direct benefits

Savings in relation to e.g. sick Companies

€1.7 million

€2.0 million

€2.1 million

leaves, staff replacement

Savings in terms of healthcare

Public

€3.4 million

€4.3 million

€4.5 million

or lost taxes

authorities

Other economic aspects

Single market: competition

No. of

No closures

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

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Impact

Stakeholders

affected

0.01

OEL options (fibres/cm

)

0.002

0.001

Single market: internal market

Companies

some clients may delay or abandon plans to

remove asbestos.

There is some risk of increase in unauthorised

work.

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

Limited negative impact

MSs that

All MS except All MS except

would have to France and the

the

All MS

change OELs Netherlands

Netherlands

Social impacts

Benefits

Reduced cases of cancers

Savings of ill health, incl.

intangible costs (M2 to

M1)

Employment

Environmental impacts

Workers &

families

Workers &

families

Jobs lost

663

€166 – 323

million

830

€208 – 405

million

860

€215 – 418

million

No significant net loss of employment is being

predicted at the OEL option of 0.01 fibres/cm3.

Environmental releases

Environment No impact/limited positive impact

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

OW 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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

With regard to the measurements methods needed to monitor compliance with the

different OELs options. Option 2 is possible using either PCM or EM. Option 3

measurement will require EM (in line with the Dutch experience). To measure

compliance with option 4, the best currently available EM measurement technique must

be used and even then, while it may be possible to measure such a low exposure level in

clean rural environments, it is not necessarily the case in dusty environments

(see

Annex 8).

Therefore, while option 4 and option 3 are slightly more effective (saving more 5-4

cancer cases per year compared to option 2) in terms of avoiding cancer cases, option 2

offers the best balance between prevention and practical implementation.

With regard to the

efficiency,

the options are ranked according to the increase on the

protection of workers at the EU level while preventing closures and other severe

disadvantages for the businesses. Strictly looking at the monetised impacts, costs

outweigh the benefits for all the assessed options. The

cost/benefit

ratio for option 2 is

(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

Annex 1 to RAC opinion. See footnote 38.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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:

Criteria

Baseline

Effectiveness

Efficiency

Coherence

0.01 fibres/cm

0.002 fibres/cm

0.001 fibres/cm

---

Option 2:

Option 3:

Option 4:

REFERRED 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/cm

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/cm

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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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/cm

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

stakeholders (representatives from workers’ associations, representatives from

employers' associations, and representatives from governments), which helps to ensure

that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality are well respected.

Updating the AWD is an effective way to ensure that preventive measures would be

updated accordingly in all Member States, providing a uniform level of minimum

requirements designed to guarantee a better standard of health and safety and thus

minimising the disparities in health and safety protection levels of workers between

Member States.

Furthermore, the preferred option also offers a certain margin of flexibility to Member

States. In accordance with Article 153(4) of the TFEU, setting or revising OELs at the

EU level does not prevent Member States from maintaining or introducing more stringent

protective measures (i.e. lower limit values). However, Member States cannot set a

higher limit value than the EU OEL set in the article 8 of the AWD. Updating the AWD

therefore complies with the principle of

subsidiarity.

The

proportionality

principle is respected as the preferred option is limited to revising

the limit value for asbestos by amending Article 8 to the AWD on the basis of the

scientific and technical data available, as provided by the 3

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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Furthermore, the preferred option is endorsed by employers, meaning that although the

quantified costs may be higher than benefits, businesses consider it a proportionate

option. When considering the costs per company, in average, they will incur a cost of

EUR 375 per year on average

. However as referred in section 8.1.3, small companies

from a few specific sectors (repair and maintenance of electrical equipment, vessels, and

motor vehicles) may face substantial new compliance costs. Despite this, as most of the

costs are likely to be passed to consumers, no significant number of companies is

expected to cease their activities.

The preferred option includes a recommendation for a change of the method to be

commonly used for monitoring, which have also been discussed by the relevant

stakeholders.

The preferred option has the better cost/benefit ratio and the estimated cost/turnover ratio

is small for all companies and sectors.

The aim of this initiative is to ensure a balanced approach, i.e., to prevent companies

from closures or severe economic disadvantages while providing an adequate protection

of the workers at the EU level. The preferred option is considered the most balanced and

justified in light of the accrued and longer-term benefits in terms of reducing health risks

arising from workers' exposure to asbestos and saving lives.

Finally, regarding the

simplification

and the efficiency improvement of the existing

legislation, the preferred option eliminates the need for Member States to conduct their

own scientific analysis to revise the OEL. Employers also benefit from the simplification

in ensuring legal compliance (more homogenous limit values across the EU), particularly

those operating in different Member States.

9.1

OW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED

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 To enhance The number The data sources for the monitoring of this

the

occupational

indicator are:

diseases

and effectiveness occupational

the

data that could be collected under

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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

occupational

related cancer cases exposure

limit value

in the EU

under

the

AWD

updating it

on the basis

of scientific

expertise

diseases and

occupational

cancer cases

in the EU

European Occupational Diseases Statistics

(EODS) - Experimental statistics of

Eurostat, as well as on other non-cancer

work-related health problems and

illnesses in accordance with Regulation

(EC) No 1338/2008

data notified by employers to the

competent national authorities on cases of

cancer identified in accordance with

national law and/or practice as resulting

from occupational exposure to asbestos in

accordance with Art. 18 (2) of Directive

2009/148/EC, and which may be accessed

by the Commission in accordance with

Article 18 of Directive 2004/37/EC.

data submitted by Member States in the

national implementation reports according

to Art. 22 of Directive 2009/148/EC on

the implementation of the Directive,

submitted in accordance with Art. 17a of

Directive

89/391/EEC.

The

evaluation will cover the period from

2018-2022.

The monitoring of this indicator will require

the comparison of the expected figures on

the burden of occupational cancer in terms

of economic loss and health care costs and

the collected figures on these matters after

the adoption of the revision. The

productivity loss and health care costs can

be established on the basis of the data on the

number of occupational cancer cases and

the number of occupational cancer deaths

(the arrangements for the collection of the

data on occupational cancer cases are

described supra in this table).

The reduction of

costs related to

occupational

cancer

for

economic operators

and

for social

security systems in

the EU

To enhance

the

effectiveness

the

occupational

exposure

limit value

under

the

AWD

updating it

on the basis

of scientific

expertise

The

costs

occupational

cancer for

economic

operators

(e.g. loss of

productivity)

and social

security

systems in

the EU.

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.

Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008 on Community statistics on public health and health and safety at work,

OJ L 354/70, 31.12.2008

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

At EU level, the Committee of Senior Labour Inspectors (SLIC) informs the Commission

regarding problems relating to the enforcement of Directive 2009/148/EC.

While collection of reliable data in this area is complex, the Commission and EU-OSHA

are actively working on improving data quality and availability so that the actual impacts

of the proposed initiative could be measured in a more accurate way and additional

indicators could be developed in the future (e.g. in relation to mortality caused by

occupational cancer). Ongoing projects include cooperation with national authorities on

the European Occupational Diseases Statistics (EODS) data collection

and Workers'

exposure survey on cancer risk factors to be implemented by EU-OSHA

Legislative action needs to be followed up through effective implementation at the

workplace. Companies have a broad range of tools, information and good practices

provided by EU-OSHA in the context of a Healthy Workplaces Campaign on dangerous

substances

9.2

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.

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 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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Annex 1: Procedural information

EAD

DG, D

ECIDE

LANNING

/CWP

REFERENCES

Lead DG: Directorate-General Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, Unit C2 -

Health and Safety at Work, EU-OSHA.

RGANISATION 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.

ONSULTATION 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.

It should explain the content of the Risk

Assessment Committee of the European

Chemicals Agency (RAC ECHA) scientific

opinion. It should clarify what the new scientific

evidence entails and what its implications are. It

should indicate upfront the degree of consensus

among stakeholders on the need to act.

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

The scope of the initiative, enhancing the

effectiveness of the asbestos occupational exposure

limit value, is more clearly indicated in section 1.

A dedicated point (5.2.2 - Revision of other

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

particular by the European Parliament, it should

explain why it discards other measures that

would fall within the scope of the Directive.

Given that legal basis provides only for the

setting of minimum harmonisation measures, the

report should better explain how the revision of

the exposure limit will lead to greater

harmonisation of limit values across the EU. It

should discuss how far Member States will be

able to deviate from the EU OEL and how this

may affect achieving a level playing field. It

should examine how the legacy building stock

and historic national building regulations have

led to differing exposure risks across Member

States.

provisions in the Directive) was included with

further explanation on other measures discarded

that would fall within the scope of the Directive.

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

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. Information on the experience since

introduction of current OEL was also referred to.

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, thus fully

addressing the problem of workers’ exposure to

asbestos, and explain why setting a zero

fibres/cm3 OEL would not be feasible.

Section 5 was further developed. It now includes

information on the process leading to an OEL

revision. The revised text clarifies that any

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.

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.

The information on section 1, was further

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).

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 and how stakeholders’ 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.

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

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

different OELs options has a direct influence in the

effectiveness. It clarifies information concerning

compliance for the assessed options.

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

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

to better explain the contribution of the

measurement methods to the effectiveness of the

options.

The information on efficiency was also

strengthened and the scores given in the

comparison of options table reviewed.

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.

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 high net costs, 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) in this initiative, as

summarised in the attached quantification tables.

VIDENCE

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

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

activity in the field of occupational safety and health. More information about what this

committee does can be found on the website of ECHA

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.

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

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Exposure/risk relationship derived on the RAC opinion

Air

concentration

asbestos

(fibres/cm3) Excess life-time cancer risk

(cases per 100 000 exposed)

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

0.001

0.002

0.005

0.01

0.02

0.05

0.1

1.2

2.5

6.2

125

Studies performed by external consultants

The Commission launched a call for tender on 30 April 2020 an open call for tender

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

study

provides the main basis for this Impact Assessment Report and is summarised in

the relevant sections of this document.

Call for Tender documents available at:

https://etendering.ted.europa.eu/cft/cft-display.html?cftId=3559

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

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation

The following consultation activities have been performed :

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.

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.

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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

1. S

OCIAL

ARTNERS

ONSULTATION

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 aspects

, 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/

on the energy performance of buildings in the context of the Renovation Wave

Strategy

100

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.

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

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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 Plan

102

, 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

102

OJ L 238, 25.9.2003, p. 28–34

European Parliament resolution of 10 February 2021 on the New Circular Economy Action Plan

(2020/2077(INI))

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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 1

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

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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. C

ONSULTATION 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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

3. C

ONSULTATION 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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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

EU Associations

MS Authorities

Manufacturers/users

National industry associations

Trade Unions

Occupational

Professionals

Health

Safety

Interests represented

Interest of industry

Interest of MS authorities

Interest of industry

Interest of workers

No particular interest - contacted in order to obtain

scientific information

Interests of industry, workers and MS authorities

No particular interest - contacted in order to obtain

information on sampling and analysis

ACSH Working Party on Chemicals

(WPC)

Laboratories

Source: External study (RPA 2021)

4. C

ALL OF EVIDENCE

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

Belgium

Germany

Italy

France

Netherlands

Austria

Denmark

Grand Total

No. of replies

Country

Finland

Hungary

Ireland

Portugal

Romania

Spain

United Kingdom

No. of

replies

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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

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/ cm

(the same

limit value as proposed by the European Parliament in its resolution). One Austrian trade

union

103

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/cm

and the development or

revision of guidelines, and 1 reply

104

supporting an OEL of 0.001 f/cm

. The only one

103

104

Gewerkschaft Bau-Holz

European Respiratory Society

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

research institution

105

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

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Annex 3: Who is affected and how?

RACTICAL 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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

2. S

UMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS

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

Description

Amount

Comments

Direct benefits

Savings for

companies

€1 700 000 Reduced absenteeism, productivity losses

and insurance payments. In addition, not

quantified benefits include legal clarity,

simplification in ensuring legal compliance

and a more balanced level playing field for

businesses across the EU.

€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 public

sector

Method 2: €166 000 000 More effective protection of their health,

reducing suffering of workers and their

Method 1: €323 000 000 families, increased length, quality and

productivity of their working lives, avoiding

premature deaths, less costs of informal care.

Administrative cost savings related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach*

Savings for

n.d.

Administrative savings for companies

companies and

operating in different Member States may

citizens

occur however these are not considered to be

significant.

No administrative savings are foreseen for

citizens

Savings for

workers &

families

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

One-off

Compliance costs

Monitoring costs

Administrative costs



Measurements



Notifications

€15 million

€650 million

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

Administrative costs

(for offsetting)

Notifications

€ 650 million-

to €2.18 bn

€420 million

€3 billion

Recurrent

€17 billion

€110 million

Administrations

One-off

€1.5 million

Recurrent

n.a.

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).

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

3. R

ELEVANT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

III. Overview of relevant Sustainable Development Goals – Preferred Option(s)

Relevant SDG

Expected progress towards Comments

the Goal

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.

Through the lowering the OEL

the initiative will contribute

directly to a decent work

environment.

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

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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Annex 4: Analytical methods

1. M

ONETISATION 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

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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

Health impacts

Guidance

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:

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel



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 costs

106

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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Table 2: Key model inputs

Parameter

Rx: Estimate of the risk or

fraction of workers affected

ExW: Exposed workforce

Cx: Exposure concentration

Explanation

Exposure-Risk Relationship (ERR)

Number of workers exposed at different points in time

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

Onset of the disease

MinEx

MaxEx

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

Value of a case

Mortality rate as a result of the relevant condition

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

Lat

Dist

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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

1.3.2. Key model inputs

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 databases

107

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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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

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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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

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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Table 4: Benefits framework

Category

Direct

Healthcare

Cost

Notes

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 to employers due to insurance

payments and absence from work

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

Informal care

108

Cost for employers (e.g. liability

insurance)

Indirect

Mortality – productivity loss

Morbidity – lost working days

Intangible

Method 1 WTP: Mortality

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).

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.

108

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Key data from Luengo-Fernandez, et al

109

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. C

OST 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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

•

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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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. L

IMITATIONS 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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Table 5 - Sensitivity of declining discount rate on the cost, benefits relative to the

baseline and CBR, for each OEL & benefit methods (€ million)

fibre/cm

0.001

0.002

Main

Benefits M1

Benefits M2

Cost

CBR M1

CBR M2

€ 420 million

€ 220 million

€ 94 000 million

220

430

€ 410 million

€ 210 million

€ 76 000 million

190

360

Declining discount rate

Benefits M1

Benefits M2

Cost

CBR M1

CBR M2

€ 630 million

€ 330 million

€ 97 000 million

150

290

€ 610 million

€ 320 million

€ 78 000 million

130

240

€ 490 million

€ 250 million

€ 25 000 million

100

€0 million

€ 330 million

€ 170 million

€ 24 000 million

140

€0 million

0.01

0.1

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/cm

0.001

0.002

Main

Benefits M1

Benefits M2

Cost

CBR M1

CBR M2

€ 420 million

€ 220 million

€ 94 000 million

220

430

€ 410 million

€ 210 million

€ 76 000 million

190

360

1.5% discount rate

Benefits M1

Benefits M2

Cost

CBR M1

CBR M2

€ 1 700 million

€ 850 million

€ 94 000 million

110

€ 1 600 million

€ 830 million

€ 76 000 million

€ 1 300 million

€ 660 million

€ 24 000 million

€0 million

€ 330 million

€ 170 million

€ 24 000 million

140

€0 million

0.01

0.1

Source: External study, RPA 2021

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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/cm

0.001

0.002

Main

Benefits M1

Benefits M2

Cost

CBR M1

CBR M2

€ 420 million

€ 220 million

€ 94,000 million

220

430

€ 410 million

€ 210 million

€ 76,000 million

190

360

€ 330 million

€ 170 million

€ 24,000 million

140

Shorter latency

Benefits M1

Benefits M2

Cost

CBR M1

CBR M2

€ 1,000 million

€ 530 million

€ 94,000 million

180

€ 990 million

€ 520 million

€ 76,000 million

150

€ 790 million

€ 410 million

€ 24,000 million

€0 million

0.01

0.1

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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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/cm

0.001

0.002

Low (75% reduction factor)

Benefits M1

Benefits M2

Cost

CBR M1

CBR M2

€

260

million

€

140

million

€ 81,000 million

310

580

€

250

million

€

130

million

€ 64,000 million

260

490

Main (50% reduction factor)

Benefits M1

Benefits M2

Cost

CBR M1

CBR M2

€ 420 million

€ 220 million

€ 94,000 million

220

430

€ 410 million

€ 210 million

€ 76,000 million

190

360

High (25% reduction factor)

Benefits M1

Benefits M2

Cost

CBR M1

CBR M2

€ 590 million

€ 310 million

€ 113,000 million

190

370

€ 570 million

€ 300 million

€ 92,000 million

160

310

€ 460 million

€ 240 million

€ 30,000 million

130

€0 million

€ 330 million

€ 170 million

€ 24,000 million

140

€0 million

€

200

million

€

100

million

€ 20,000 million

100

200

€0 million

0.01

0.1

Source: External study, RPA 2021

4. A

PPROACH 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,

•

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Annex 5: Uses, activities and exposures

1. W

HERE 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:



Two companies (AarhusKarlshamn Sweden AB and Dow Deutschland

Anlagengesellschaft mbH) still benefit from a derogation (until 2025) for the use

of asbestos in diaphragms for electrolysis installation

110

. According to

restriction

111

, 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.

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 exemptions

112

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

DK, FI, FR, DE, IE, PL. Exemptions to the Asbestos Restriction, available at:

https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/13166/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

2. A

SBESTOS 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 articles

113



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 work

114

, the most important uses are identified as:



113

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 %)

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

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel



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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Table 1: Friable vs. nonfriable ACMs

Friable ACMs

• Asbestos-containing dust (ACD)

• Sprayed coatings, laggings and loose

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)

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

(3.21%), and other non-friable materials: putties, paints, adhesives, etc. (0.02%)

116

. In

total, the friable materials accounted for about 5%.

3. N

ATURALLY 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

ECHA

117

, 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 517

118

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 forms



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

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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

asbestos minerals

119

In Italy, exposure to asbestos in serpentine rock

120

and feldspar

121

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 developed

123

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 chain

124

A guideline from the Health and Safety Security in the UK

125

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, respectively

126

A German investigation of 57 talc powders (technical and cosmetic) with regard to

asbestos, asbestos fibres were detected in 13 samples

127

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

120

BAuA - Information on Substances - Asbestos - Federal Institute for Occupational Safety an Health

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.

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

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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. V

OLUMES

/ T

ONNAGE

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 thirteen

129

European

countries before the year 2000 and further fifteen

130

countries have adopted the ban

between the years 2001 and 2013

131

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

129

Health and Safety

Talc

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

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Table 2: Historical trend in use of asbestos (kg per capita/year) and status of

national bans in 15 EU countries

Country

1950s

1960s

1970s

Austria

1.16

3.19

3.92

Denmark

3.07

4.80

4.42

Croatia

0.39

1.13

2.56

Czech

1.62

2.36

2.91

Republic

Finland

2.16

2.26

1.89

France

1.38

2.41

2.64

Germany

1.84

2.60

4.44

Hungary

0.76

1.23

2.87

Lithuania

Luxembourg

4.02

5.54

5.30

Netherlands

1.29

1.70

1.82

Romania

1.08

Spain

0.32

1.37

2.23

Sweden

1.85

2.30

1.44

Sources: IARC, 2012; Kameda et al., 2014

1980s

2.08

1.62

2.36

2.73

0.78

1.53

2.43

3.29

3.23

0.72

0.19

1.26

0.11

1990s

0.36

0.09

0.95

1.30

0.73

0.10

1.50

0.54

1.61

0.21

0.52

0.80

0.04

2000s

0.00

0.65

0.14

0.00

0.16

0.06

0.00

0.55

0.18

Ban year *

1990

1986

2013*

2005 *

1992

1996

1993

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 asbestos

132

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 Germany

133

contains information on asbestos-cement still in

use in Germany as summarised in the table below. The table, however, indicates that in

132

133

Mineral Commodity Summaries - Asbestos. US Geological Survey

Germany national asbestos profile

(BAuA)

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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

Import of asbestos (GDR & FRG):

70% used for asbestos cement production:

Asbestos cement production (10% crude

asbestos):

Asbestos waste disposal: Asbestos-containing

building materials (waste code 17 06 05):

Asbestos cement - remaining*

5.7 million tonnes asbestos

4.3 million tonnes asbestos

43 million tonnes asbestos cement

6.1 million tonnes asbestos cement (2001 –

2016)

37 million tonnes asbestos cement (2016) **

* 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

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 Germany

107

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 vehicles

107

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

Poland

134

,. 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 m

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

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

that it is uncertain as to where the asbestos is located

108

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 Description

code

W01

W02

W03.1

W03.2

W04

W05

W06

W07

W08

W09

W10

W11.1

W11.2

W11.3

W11.4

W11.5

W11.6

W11.7

W11.8

W11.9

W12.1

Flat asbestos-cement plates used

in construction

Corrugated

asbestos-cement

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

Paper, cardboard

Asbestos-cement covers

Asbestos-cement

construction

fittings (ventilation ducts, window

sills, flue gas covers)

Asbestos-cement

electrical

insulating fittings

PVC tiles

Fireproof boards

Roofing

felt,

putties

and

waterproofing compounds

household appliances

Work clothes, masks, filters

contaminated with asbestos

Other not mentioned above

Secured roads

Percent

Inventoried Neutralized Remaining remaining

665.94

7 405.84

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

164.60

1 017.01

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

0.01

0.67

0.15

501.33

6 388.86

99.22

74.83

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

75%

86%

94%

64%

56%

37%

45%

88%

98%

72%

80%

47%

100%

46%

93%

95%

82%

88%

Weight of products in 1,000 tonnes

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Product Description

code

W12.2

Unsecured roads

Total

Percent

Inventoried Neutralized Remaining remaining

0.01

0.00

34%

8,297

1,204

7,093

85%

Weight of products in 1,000 tonnes

Extracted 15 March 2021

Source:

Polish Asbestos Database

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

2018

135

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

companies

136

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

136

Aplinkos apsaugos agentūra - database on asbestos-containing products in Lithuania

Guía sobre amianto

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Table 5: Development in the quantities of asbestos-containing waste in 1,000

tonnes/year in Denmark

Waste

code

06 13 04

Description

Wastes from

asbestos

processing

Brake pads

containing

asbestos

Insulation

material

containing

asbestos

Construction

material

containing

asbestos

Construction

material

containing

asbestos -

dusty

2011

0.00

0.09

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

0.00

0.02

16 01 11

0.04

0.06

0.04

0.06

0.11

0.05

0.02

17 06 01

0.04

0.00

0.04

0.14

0.27

0.04

0.67

0.60

0.48

17 06 05

17 06 06

Total

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

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 dust

137



137

Workers in asbestos removal companies;

Building and public works employees;

Presentation, health effects, exposure and regulatory framework

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel



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.

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



5.1.2.

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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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

ships

138

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

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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 Finland

139

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 published

140

. 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

140

Asbesti. Website of the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health

Asbestos risk management guidelines for mines

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel



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

Main NACE codes

Building

and Workers in asbestos removal F41.20 Construction of residential and

construction

- companies,

demolition non-residential buildings

exposure situations companies,

entrepreneur F43 Specialised construction activities:

subject

to companies,

craftsmen, F43.11 Demolition

notification

workers in industries where F43.12 Site preparation

asbestos occurs

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.

Building

and Largely craftsmen such as F41.20 Construction of residential and

construction

- plumbers,

carpenters, non-residential buildings

exposure situations electricians and bricklayers, F43 Specialised construction activities:

subject to Article as well as general caretakers F43.22 Plumbing, heat and air

3(3)

exemptions. of buildings

conditioning installation

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Exposure group

'incidental

exposure'

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.

Building

and Workers in old office In principle, a large number of NACE

construction

- buildings, schools, industry, codes (see further discussion on exposure

passive exposure in etc. with ACMs (e.g. wear levels)

buildings

from ceilings)

Exposure

to Workers in asbestos removal C33.14 Repair of electrical equipment

asbestos in articles: companies, renovation and C33.15 Repair and maintenance of ships

Trains,

vehicles, refurbishment of means of and boats

vessels, aircraft and transport, sailors, etc.

C33.16 Repair and maintenance of aircraft

other

In general, the activities and spacecraft

would

subject

to C33.17 Repair and maintenance of other

notification

transport equipment

G45.2 Maintenance and repair of motor

vehicles repair of motor vehicles and

motorcycles

Waste management Workers

involved

in E36.00 Water collection, treatment and

and

remediation transport and disposal of supply

activities

asbestos-containing waste

E38.11 Collection of non-hazardous waste

The activities may be subject E38.12 Collection of hazardous waste

to notification or exempted 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

asbestos, lead paint, and other toxic

material abatement)

Mining

and Workers in extraction of B08.11 Quarrying of ornamental and

quarrying

- asbestos-containing minerals building stone, limestone, gypsum, chalk

naturally occurring Use of tack powder in and slate

asbestos

manufacture of rubber

C22.19 Manufacture of other rubber

products

Tunnel

naturally Workers involved in tunnel F42.11 Construction of roads and

occurring asbestos construction (drilling in motorways

asbestos-containing rocks)

F42.12 Construction of railways and

underground railways

F42.13 Construction of bridges and tunnel

Road construction - Workers involved in use of F42.11 Construction of roads and

partly

naturally asbestos-containing

motorways

occurring asbestos construction materials

F42.12 Construction of railways and

Workers

involved

in underground railways

maintenance

roads

intentionally added asbestos C23.99 Manufacture of other non-metallic

in the past

mineral products n.e.c. (mixing of asphalt)

Mixing of asphalt

Worker population

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Exposure group Worker population

Main NACE codes

Sampling

and Workers

involved

in M71.20 Technical testing and analysis

analysis

sampling of ACMs or

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

Number of Extrapolated

exposed

number of

workers

exposed

(rounded) in workers in

the Member

the EU27

States

Country

Year(s)

Coverage of national data (source)

Italy

2019

Germany 2017

2010

2017

France

2020

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 is registered in SIREP

(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 asbestos - potentially exposed

(EFBWW, stakeholder consultation).

Total estimated number in France (INRS

as quoted by ANSES)

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

1 000 000 -

2 000 000

(of these

3 700 000 -

5 900 000

7 000 000 -

14 000 000

2007

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Country

Year(s)

Coverage of national data (source)

Number of Extrapolated

exposed

number of

workers

exposed

(rounded) in workers in

the Member

the EU27

States

900 000 in

the building

sector)

1 200

17 645

1 400

97 000

167 000

17 000

Finland

Spain

Poland

Romania

Bulgaria

2013-

2015

2016

2013

2006

2012

Workers registered in the Finnish

asbestos registry (FIOH, 2020)

Workers registered in the PIVISTEA

database (SANIDAD, 2018)

Not reported (Quoted by Vencovsky et

al. (2017) with reference to Central

Not reported (Quoted by Vencovsky et

al. (2017) with reference to Ministerulul

Sănătăţii şi Familiei in Romania

Registered exposed (Vangelova et al.,

2015)

Estimated

potentially

exposed

(Vangelova et al., 2015)

7 300

1 188

27 000

169 000

76 000

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 data

141

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]

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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 sites

142

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/cm

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 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC),

available at:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A31992L0057

143

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

presence-d-amiante-sur-des-wagons-de-fret_3560829.html

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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/cm

. About 30

enterprises in the valley perform quarrying and processing of the serpentinite, with more

than 1,810 workers involved

144

. 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/cm

during mining and treatment is violated in 10 out of 2 000 active

quarries in Germany

145

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/cm

. 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

equipment

146

. 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/cm

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/cm

, 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]

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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 256

147

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

Building and construction

- exposure situations

subject to notification

Building and construction

- exposure situations

subject to Article 3(3)

waiver, 'incidental'

exposure

Building and construction

- passive exposure in

buildings

Estimated exposed

workforce

300 000 - 500 000

Remark

3 500 000 - 5 500 000

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.

200 000 - 1 000 000

Potentially millions

147

Exposure to asbestos in

articles: Trains, vehicles,

vessels, aircraft and other

Waste management

5 000 - 25 000

50 000 - 200 000

The number of workers estimated

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.

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

Exposure group

Estimated exposed

workforce

Remark

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.

Excl. potentially more at levels

close to 0.001 fibres/cm

Mining and quarrying -

naturally occurring

asbestos

Tunnel excavation

5 000-20 000

500-5 000

Road construction and

maintenance

Sampling and analysis

Total (rounded)

10 000 - 50 000

10 000 - 25 000

4 100 000 - 7 300 000

Source:

External study.

RPA study own calculation

100

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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

Main sectors

F41 - Construction of

buildings

F43 - Specialised

construction activities

Potentially

many

sectors (e.g. D35 and

E39; SCOLA database

lists up to 24 sectors)

Total

2,399

33,600

Small

2,381

33,395

99.25%

99.39%

Medium

186

0.71%

0.55%

Large

0.04%

0.06%

Building and

construction -

exposure

situations

subject to

notification

12,001

11,901

99.17%

0.57%

0.27%

101

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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

Main sectors

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)

Total

Small

Medium

Large

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

data

No data

C33 - Repair and

installation

machinery

and

equipment (selected

subsectors)

G45 - Wholesale and

retail trade and repair

of motor vehicles and

motorcycles

E36 - Water collection,

treatment and supply

300

296

98.67%

1.00%

0.33%

100.00%

0.00%

300

279

93.00%

5.00%

2.00%

Waste

management

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

railways

and

underground railways

F42.13 - Construction

of bridges and tunnel

2,200

2,027

92.14%

138

6.27%

1.59%

Mining and

quarrying -

naturally

occurring

asbestos

Tunnel

excavation

251

242

96.41%

3.19%

0.40%

100.00%

0.00%

95.00%

5.00%

0.00%

Road

construction

and

maintenance

Sampling and

analysis

Summary

(rounded)

F42.11 - Construction

roads

and

motorways

M71.20

Technical

testing and analysis

1,100

1,042

94.73%

4.27%

1.00%

440

1,550,500

434

1,540,000

98.64%

99.32%

9,000

1.14%

0.58%

1,500

0.23%

0.10%

Source: Eurostat and RPA (2021) study own calculation

102

kom (2022) 0489 - Ingen titel

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

4-digit NACE category