Diversion of Asbestos-Containing Waste from Landfilling: Opportunities and Challenges

Abstract

The management of asbestos-containing waste (ACW) presents a significant environmental challenge due to the material’s widespread historical use and persistent toxicity. While landfilling remains the primary disposal method, it poses long-term environmental risks and conflicts with circular economy principles. Across Europe, large quantities of asbestos remain in building stock, including approximately 15 million tons in Poland, 4.5 million tons in Lithuania, and 1 million tons in Latvia. This study examines Latvia’s ACW management challenges and opportunities, combining theoretical analysis with empirical research. A large-scale survey (n = 2005) revealed significant gaps in public knowledge, with 28% of respondents willing to reuse asbestos-containing roofing despite recognizing its hazards, highlighting a critical disconnect between awareness and behavior. The study also assessed Latvia’s pilot Asbestos Removal Program, demonstrating high public demand but limited funding capacity. Thermal treatment, particularly plasma vitrification, was identified as the most mature alternative to landfilling, though implementation barriers include high capital costs and specialized expertise requirements. Findings emphasize the need for sustainable financing mechanisms, such as a differentiated landfill tax, to ensure the long-term viability of asbestos removal initiatives. Latvia’s experience provides valuable insights for other nations seeking to mitigate ACW-related health and environmental risks through improved policy frameworks and practical management solutions.

1. Introduction

Asbestos nowadays is one of the most hazardous materials found in construction and demolition waste streams, particularly during the demolition of older buildings, with its disposal presenting significant risks for land pollution and soil degradation. Asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) are mixtures of cement matrix and asbestos fibers, widely used in a variety of building materials due to their extraordinary tensile strength and resistance to heat and corrosion. When these materials deteriorate or are improperly disposed of, they can release microscopic fibers that contaminate soil systems, potentially affecting soil biodiversity and creating long-term environmental hazards.

The silicate mineral asbestos is categorized into two main groups based on fiber structure: serpentine asbestos (chrysotile) and amphibole asbestos (crocidolite, amosite, anthophyllite, tremolite, and actinolite). According to estimates, until the 1990s, ACMs (e.g., asbestos-cement, Eternit, disk brake pads, etc.) were used in more than 3000 industrial applications and for manufacturing various types of products, due to their outstanding characteristics [1,2]. Chrysotile specifically is used in more than 2000 applications and is especially prevalent in the construction industry [3,4]. These materials were commonly found in asbestos-cement products such as pipes, sheets, and panels; roofing materials, including asbestos-cement roofing and felts; as well as insulation materials for thermal and acoustic purposes [5,6]. ACMs also extended to household goods and various industrial and commercial products [7,8].

Asbestos fibers contained in the degraded products tend to exfoliate, liberating themselves from the embedding matrix, thus generating airborne particles. The breathing of these fibers can cause benign asbestos-related disorders, like asbestosis and pleural plaques [1] and malignant pleural mesothelioma—a rare, aggressive tumor; therefore asbestos has been included in Group 1 of carcinogens (i.e., carcinogenic for humans) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Tumors originate from the serosal cells lining the lungs, causing mesothelioma, asbestos-related lung cancer and asbestosis [9]. Although ACMs are now banned in 72 countries [10], an estimated 107,000 workers die from asbestos exposure each year, and approximately 125 million workers continue to be exposed to this hazardous substance [11]. This widespread historical use of ACMs has created an enduring legacy of potential soil contamination sites worldwide that require careful management and remediation strategies.

In line with numerous nations globally, Latvia has implemented landfill disposal as the predominant approach for asbestos-containing waste (ACW) management. This methodology engenders substantial sustainability concerns that necessitate rigorous analysis through environmental, social, and economic frameworks. The empirical evidence elucidates a complex network of interrelated challenges that obstruct advancement toward more sustainable ACW management practices. The primary objective of this research is to evaluate existing interventions implemented in Latvia to address ACW disposal challenges and to formulate evidence-based recommendations for enhancing sustainability, drawing upon an assessment of the pilot Asbestos Removal Program conducted in Latvia, and expert interviews. The findings of the research highlight some of the main challenges in behavioral perception; for example, despite public awareness of health and environmental risks, relatively large proportion of society still consider reusing asbestos materials in their households. Financial barriers limit proper disposal, with the 2024 pilot Asbestos Removal Program demonstrating high demand but insufficient funding to meet all needs. Latvia’s approach offers a model for other countries to meet ACW sustainable disposal challenges, though expanded financial support and international collaboration are needed to address asbestos risks effectively.

The paper is organized into eight main sections. It begins with an introduction to the ACW issue and Latvia’s management challenges. Section 2 outlines the historical use of asbestos in Europe, followed by Section 3, which explores management challenges and treatment technologies, including identification, handling, and sustainable alternatives. Section 4 focuses on Latvia’s national context, including regulatory frameworks and waste data. Section 5 details the research methodology, combining a household survey and expert interviews. The results in Section 6 present key findings from both empirical components. Section 7 provides a discussion on implementation barriers and policy needs, and Section 8 concludes with recommendations for sustainable ACW management.

2. The Legacy of Asbestos Use in Europe

Asbestos, a group of naturally occurring silicate minerals with exceptional resistance to heat, electricity, and chemical damage, was once celebrated as a “miracle mineral” due to its versatility and durability. Nowadays, the environmental and public health legacy of asbestos mining remains significant across Europe and internationally. Italy, as a principal producer of asbestos and among the foremost consumers in Europe during the twentieth century continues to manage the consequences of extensive asbestos exposure where asbestos exposure impacted populations across diverse occupational settings, including asbestos mining and commercial operations, cement manufacturing plants, naval construction facilities, and textile production centers [12]. Italy enacted a ban on the use and extraction of asbestos materials in 1992 [12,13], the occupational dispersion subsequently generated extensive environmental contamination, resulting in significant exposure among residents of adjacent communities.

Many European countries face a similar situation. In France, the implementation of a national ban on asbestos through decree no. 96-1133 in 1996 established regulatory frameworks primarily addressing manufactured asbestos-containing products. These frameworks, however, present significant challenges when applied to naturally occurring asbestos-bearing materials in geological formations. In response to concerns regarding these natural asbestos sources, a comprehensive mapping of geological sites containing asbestos-bearing rock formations was conducted [14]. The historical context of asbestos mining and its use in construction materials has left behind a perilous legacy that necessitates continued vigilance in public health monitoring and remediation efforts since France experiences approximately 2000 annual fatalities attributable to asbestos exposure, with mesothelioma accounting for 750 of these deaths [15].

The incorporation of asbestos into the built environment across Europe was substantial, with millions of tons used in residential, commercial, industrial, and public structures from approximately 1920 until various national bans began to take effect in the 1980s. According to the study by Wu et al. [16], approximately three-quarters of residential buildings in Sweden were constructed prior to 1980, a period during which ACMs were extensively used. The Swedish housing stock is predominantly composed of 41% single-family houses, 33% multifamily houses, and 26% mixed-use premise buildings, which combine residential and commercial functions. According to historical inventory records from Gothenburg and Stockholm, asbestos is present in 61% of single-family houses, 85% of multi-family houses, and 78% of premise buildings.

From 1945 until the late 1990s, Poland used significant volumes of asbestos-cement materials, predominantly in the construction of housing, farm structures, and industrial complexes by incorporating several million tons of asbestos-cement products into Poland’s infrastructure. It is estimated that over 15 million tons of asbestos waste exist, with more than 90% consisting of asbestos-cement materials [17].

Until 1990, asbestos was extensively used in Lithuania, predominantly in industrial facilities, with chrysotile sourced mainly from Russia and Kazakhstan serving as the primary raw material. Over the years, approximately 0.7 million tons of asbestos were imported into Lithuania and now the total estimated ACM volume is estimated around 4.5 million tons or approximately 1600 kg of asbestos waste per average Lithuanian resident [18].

The implementation of national bans—predominantly enacted between the late 1980s and early 2000s—came after decades of substantial asbestos incorporation into the built environment, creating complex remediation challenges that continue to impact public health and environmental outcomes. In 2005, the European Union enacted a comprehensive prohibition of asbestos utilization across its member states [19], representing a pivotal regulatory development intended to address the public health implications associated with asbestos exposure. This legislative action was predicated on an expanding scientific consensus regarding asbestos-related health hazards. The prohibition extended beyond merely restricting new asbestos applications to encompass mandatory management protocols for pre-existing asbestos-containing materials in buildings and infrastructure, with the primary objective of safeguarding public health and reducing the prevalence of illnesses. This harmonized approach to asbestos regulation across member states signified a fundamental reorientation toward integrated public health and environmental safety governance within the European Union. Despite this regulatory milestone, the case studies from different European countries clearly demonstrate that the historical utilization of asbestos across Europe presents a significant contemporary public health and environmental challenge. The widespread industrial application of asbestos during the twentieth century, particularly in construction and manufacturing sectors, established conditions for both occupational and environmental exposure pathways that persist despite subsequent regulatory prohibitions.

3. The Management Challenges of Asbestos-Containing Materials

Today, the life cycle of buildings that have been constructed using ACMs is reaching the time for renovation and demolition, and their demolition waste will provide an enormous volume of asbestos-containing waste. The largest group of asbestos products include cement-asbestos products made from chrysotile and amphibole asbestos (roof slates, pressure pipes, stone cladding, and façade panels [5].

3.1. Identification of Asbestos

The identification of asbestos in buildings and construction and demolition waste (CDW) is a critical priority due to its significant health, environmental, and legal ramifications. Proper waste characterization is essential to minimize the volume of CDW requiring disposal in controlled landfills. This process involves separating hazardous materials, such as ACMs, from inert components to mitigate potential health risks and ensure compliance with environmental regulations.

The implementation of rapid and reliable analytical methods for the preliminary detection and identification of asbestos fibers during demolition or renovation activities is of particular importance. Such methods have the potential to enhance safety protocols, reduce operational timelines, and lower associated costs. These advancements support the efficient management of hazardous materials, contributing to both regulatory compliance and sustainable waste management practices. The previous research suggests different methods to identify ACM in buildings and construction and demolition waste such as: (a) hyperspectral imaging and hierarchical PLS-DA to capture high-resolution spectral data that can identify the unique spectral signatures of asbestos fibers [20,21]; (b) X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and Micro-XRF providing information about the elemental composition of the materials including ACM [1]; (c) bulk sampling and laboratory analysis to identify asbestos [22]. The selection of appropriate methods for asbestos identification is contingent upon the specific objectives and context of the project. Factors such as the availability of specialized equipment, the expertise of personnel, and whether the analysis will be conducted on-site or in a laboratory setting significantly influence this decision. In many cases, a multi-faceted approach integrating multiple analytical techniques is essential to achieve a comprehensive assessment of asbestos presence in CDW. This ensures that all potential sources of asbestos are accurately identified and effectively managed, thereby minimizing health risks and ensuring compliance with regulatory standards.

Previous research highlights that most existing buildings lack comprehensive Building Information Models or Material and Component Banks. This absence poses significant challenges in situations where the composition and usage of materials within these structures are unclear, hindering efforts to effectively assess and manage building materials [23]. Lacking access to the building component descriptions and construction methods leads to an inaccurate mapping of hazardous materials [24] including ACMs.

The process of identifying hazardous materials and estimating recyclable waste streams in situ has become an essential component of pre-demolition activities, particularly before extensive renovation, deconstruction, or demolition. Pre-demolition audits, which are critical to achieving these objectives, involve several intricate steps, including a desk study, on-site inspections, etc. Research demonstrates that using the pre-demolition audit as the only way to assure material quality is insufficient and new means of decision support to evaluate the contamination risk of building materials are required to be developed.

Since ACMs were widely used in construction in the past, in practice, ACMs are removed by the demolition projects where one of the primary obstacles is the limited time, hindering the comprehensive and detailed inventory of hazardous materials such as ACMs [25]. This constraint increases the likelihood of incomplete assessments, potentially compromising the effectiveness of waste management and the safe handling of hazardous substances. Consequently, the development of more efficient auditing methods or the integration of advanced technologies, such as digital tools or artificial intelligence, could play a pivotal role in addressing these challenges and ensuring the thorough identification of ACM within constrained timelines. One such detection method could be a system utilizing Hyperspectral Imaging, presenting a promising approach for identifying and segregating hazardous materials within recycling processes. Several studies have explored the application of Hyperspectral Imaging techniques for detecting asbestos fibers in ACM samples. The findings consistently demonstrate that the proposed method effectively distinguishes ACM from other materials such as tiles, bricks, concrete, and stone [1].

3.2. Handling and Landfilling of ACMs

The removal and handling of ACMs demand strict adherence to specific work preconditions to ensure the safety of workers and compliance with occupational health standards. Key requirements include the implementation of comprehensive safety protocols, which encompass thorough employee training on appropriate safety measures. Personnel must be equipped with suitable personal protective equipment, such as respirators, protective suits, and gloves, to minimize the risk of exposure to hazardous asbestos fibers. Effective decontamination procedures must also be in place to further mitigate contamination risks. To safeguard workers’ health, regular air quality monitoring is essential, along with periodic health assessments to identify any potential adverse effects resulting from exposure. These measures not only protect employees but also ensure that removal processes adhere to regulatory standards, highlighting the importance of a structured and proactive approach in ACM management [22,26]. Given the high risk of fiber release during asbestos removal, it is essential to ensure that any fibers potentially released during the remediation process are effectively contained. This is commonly achieved by spraying or wetting down ACM with water prior to its removal. An alternative to using water for wetting down is the application of a dilute polyvinyl alcohol solution or a similar sprayed-on sealant, which can provide enhanced protection and more effective coverage [27].

Directives of European Waste Catalogue, code 170605, classify all ACW as hazardous and require specific treatment [28]; therefore, ACW is generally bagged and deposited in a controlled landfill, while the toxicity or potential health and environmental risk of asbestos fibers remain [29,30]. Dumping of ACW in controlled landfills only postpones the environmental and human health issues to the future generations since the absence of asbestos fibers release in the atmosphere and in hydrologic systems (as a consequence of the possible action of acid-corrosive agents in the leachate) cannot be guaranteed [13]. Research has indicated that relegating ACW to controlled landfills does not fully mitigate the inherent risks but may defer them to the future [31].

This synthesis of findings suggests an urgent need to transition from current containment-based approaches to more permanent treatment solutions that actually neutralize the hazardous properties of ACW. The research implies that while current regulatory frameworks acknowledge the hazardous nature of ACW, the prescribed management methods may be inadequate for long-term environmental and public health protection. This conclusion underscores the importance of developing and implementing more effective treatment technologies that can permanently render ACW non-hazardous, rather than continuing to rely on temporary landfilling strategies that merely defer the problem.

3.3. Sustainable Approaches to Divert ACW from Landfilling

The previous research demonstrates a significant historical legacy of in situ ACMs. One approach to managing these materials is to leave them undisturbed or stabilize them in situ through encapsulation with a sealant [27]. However, when ACMs pose a risk of fiber release due to damage, deterioration, or planned demolition activities, their removal and proper management become imperative. This process necessitates meticulous handling, strict adherence to regulatory requirements, and the application of effective remediation strategies to mitigate risks to both health and the environment.

While landfilling after the removal of ACW is the most widely used technique for asbestos waste disposal [3], the literature, as well as the European Union political commitments, considers the landfilling of ACM a temporary solution since it is not a definitive or sustainable approach due to the inherent risks associated with asbestos [19]. Although the accumulation and storage of ACMs, along with their associated environmental emissions and toxicity, continue to increase, comprehensive research regarding their safe disposal and effective management in the environment is still lacking [32].

Comprehensive strategies involving alternative treatment methods, recycling, and proper waste management practices are being developed to address the asbestos problem in a more sustainable and environmentally responsible manner. Asbestos treatment technologies suggest stabilization, i.e., reduction in fiber release or the alteration of the fiber structure. While this approach reduces the immediate risk of ACM dispersal, the toxic components remain intact and retain the potential to be released into the environment over time. The second method—inertization—tends to achieve complete crystal-chemical transformation of asbestos fibers. In this approach, asbestos loses its ‘fibrous structure’ and becomes ‘inert’, and the waste products derived in this approach can be treated as a new secondary raw material for recycling [31]. The suggested methods that achieve complete destruction of ACMs are attractive because the treated products can be recycled or safely disposed of in landfills, particularly when they include chemical, thermal, thermochemical and biological treatments.

Chemical methods often involve the use of strong acids or other chemical agents to decompose asbestos fibers. In chemical treatment, the fiber structure is disintegrated with methods that must suit the specific asbestos fiber [33]. For example, organic (formic, acetic) or inorganic (sulfuric, nitric) acids may be used to turn the pure fibers of chrysotile asbestos into the harmless end-products magnesium salts and amorphous silica [32]. Auyeshov et al. [34] explored an acid-based process to treat chrysotile asbestos residue, converting the waste into magnesium salts such as MgSO₄, MgCl₂, and Mg(NO₃)₂. These laboratory findings indicate that chemical approaches can alter the composition of ACW into potentially valuable by-products; however, the process remains experimental due to challenges related to chemical handling, and issues with process economics that hinder commercialization of the product. Research by Jo et al. [35] demonstrated the application of thermochemical technology combining chemical additives with heat to enhance the detoxification of ACM. In the study, sulfuric acid effectively converted asbestos-containing materials into non-fibrous substances at elevated temperatures. Another study by Yvon and Sharrock [36] demonstrated that thermochemical treatments can facilitate the recycling of mineral residues from ACM into cement products. Hence, this method not only neutralizes the hazardous properties of asbestos, but can also repurpose the waste into useful materials.

Studies underscore the potential benefits of innovative chemical and thermochemical processes for ACW management. However, despite promising laboratory results, these technologies face significant implementation barriers including chemical handling safety concerns, secondary waste management challenges, and unfavorable economic profiles that have limited industrial-scale adoption.

Thermal treatment is a widely recognized method for asbestos inertization and is considered by scholars as the most prospective [37]. This process involves heating ACM to high temperatures, leading to the breakdown of the fibrous structure. Research indicates that heating ACM at temperatures exceeding 700 °C can induce significant structural changes, effectively rendering the materials non-toxic. Thermal treatment of asbestos-containing materials can be accomplished through diverse heating methodologies, encompassing conventional thermal approaches, hydrothermal processing techniques, microwave irradiation, and plasma-based systems. Vitrification, pyrolysis, microwave air plasma digestion and hydrothermal treatment are the most common thermal treatment technologies used to inertize ACMs. Although thermal treatment protocols have traditionally been associated with substantial energy consumption and elevated emissions profiles, their industrial viability may be enhanced through the implementation of zero-emission technologies, particularly hydrogen-based thermal systems, or through the integration of renewable energy sources into existing treatment infrastructures [18]. The study on thermal treatment leads to the conclusion that the calcination of asbestos-cement wastes at ~1000 °C is sufficient to totally destroy the dangerous structure of asbestos and there are no significant differences between the types of asbestos-cement samples used. The research conclusively establishes that thermal treatment at appropriate temperatures effectively destroys the hazardous structure of asbestos-containing materials. The consistency of results across different asbestos-cement samples suggests this is a robust and reliable method, though optimization of energy efficiency remains an important area for continued development.

Emerging research has explored biological methods for the remediation of asbestos. The advantages of biotechnological methods are the low-cost and low energy demand of biological waste management. For instance, certain microorganisms, such as iron-chelating siderophores produced by fungi and bacteria, have been explored as a low-energy option for the treatment of asbestos-contaminated soils and materials [38,39]. Another biological strategy involves the use of plants and their metabolites in supporting asbestos detoxification. Luniewski et al. [40] reviewed the potential of plants, microorganisms, and their metabolites. The author highlighted the need for more research to explore the feasibility of using biological systems for the treatment of asbestos-containing waste. While these approaches show promise, they are still in the early stages of development and require significant additional research.

The literature also reviews other methods of ACM treatment, such as grinding. Even grinding can reduce the size of asbestos particles, which may affect their reactivity and stability during subsequent treatment processes [2]; the mechanical treatment is often not sufficient on its own to fully neutralize the hazards associated with asbestos and should be viewed more as preparatory action for further processing, in the instance of allowing the use of a lower net thermal energy in thermal treatment.

The treatment technologies which could serve as alternatives to divert ACW from landfilling are primarily applicable to abated ACW—the form typically generated during demolition and renovation activities. While several innovative approaches for the treatment of ACW have been identified in the literature, it is essential to critically assess their technological maturity and real-world implementation. As the literature demonstrates, among the most advanced are thermal treatment technologies, widely recognized as the most effective method for permanent inertization of asbestos fibers. Notably, the INERTAM facility in Morcenx, France has been operational since 1999, using plasma torch technology at temperatures exceeding 1500 °C to vitrify asbestos waste. The resulting material, marketed as “Cofalit”, has been certified as non-hazardous [41,42] and can be utilized in civil engineering applications such as solid fillers [43]. The transformation of a hazardous waste stream into a usable secondary raw material demonstrates a practical implementation of circular economy principles, even for materials traditionally considered problematic. While the high capital investment and operational costs have limited widespread adoption of the vitrification technologies [44], the INERTAM case provides evidence that with appropriate technological solutions and regulatory frameworks, even hazardous waste streams like ACW demonstrate potential to be incorporated into industrial symbiotic relationships.

3.4. The Potential of Industrial Symbiosis in ACM Management

Industrial Symbiosis (IS) is an emerging approach that emphasizes the recovery and reuse of waste materials, water, and energy. In response to mounting environmental challenges associated with manufacturing processes, IS has transformed the paradigm of waste management from traditional disposal methods such as landfilling and incineration to a more circular approach. This framework reconceptualizes industrial and post-consumer waste streams as valuable resource inputs, whereby residual materials from one organization’s processes or end-of-life products are systematically integrated into another organization’s production cycle. This mutually beneficial exchange exemplifies the biological principle of symbiosis, creating interconnected industrial networks that optimize resource utilization while minimizing environmental impact [45]. IS, defined by inter-organizational networks that facilitate the exchange of byproducts and waste streams as production inputs, has demonstrated significant environmental, economic, and social value across diverse global implementations. Nevertheless, current applications represent only a fraction of the theoretical potential, suggesting substantial untapped opportunities for expanding these resource-efficient industrial ecosystems [46,47].

Since the landfilling of ACMs remains the primary disposal method of ACM worldwide, alternative solutions such as the integration of ACM in IS require careful management strategies considering the inherent risks associated with asbestos fiber exposure, economically viable technical limitations and stringent regulatory frameworks. While industrial symbiosis has demonstrated significant success in valorizing various waste streams, the carcinogenic properties of asbestos fibers and the potential for environmental contamination necessitate adherence to specialized disposal and treatment methods such as thermal treatment technologies and chemical transformation processes that can permanently neutralize or encapsulate asbestos fibers.

The potential for industrial symbiosis involving ACMs is highlighted by the demand for innovative recycling techniques approaching with caution, employing methods that ensure the safe handling and processing of these materials. Research demonstrates the ability of the mechano-chemical treatment of ACW to enhance the hydraulic properties of asbestos-containing waste, enabling its use in construction materials. For instance, the products of thermal treatment of ACW are being applied for preparation of traditional ceramics, magnesium phosphate cement, shrinkage-reducing raw material for clinker bricks, geopolymers or supplementary materials for concrete [48,49,50,51]. The incorporation of ACMs into recycling processes, particularly through geopolymerization, presents significant technical challenges and variable outcomes. Recent empirical studies, notably the work of Lach et al. [50], have revealed important limitations in the efficacy of fiber immobilization within geopolymer matrices. The partial success in fiber containment raises critical questions about the long-term stability and safety of such applications.

Notwithstanding the promising research directions outlined, the literature and real-life application clearly demonstrate that substantial limitations persist in industrial symbiosis applications for ACMs. Treatment efficacy variability, inconsistent fiber immobilization, and potential long-term release risks present significant implementation barriers. Contemporary technologies remain largely experimental, lacking commercial-scale validation over timeframes sufficient to ensure public safety. Regulatory frameworks globally continue to prioritize containment rather than recycling of asbestos-containing materials due to their established carcinogenicity. This discussion should be interpreted as exploratory, requiring substantial additional research, safety assessments, and regulatory evolution before widespread adoption. Presently, conventional secure disposal methods represent the most prudent approach for ACM waste management; however, this reinforces the critical necessity for accelerated research into sustainable alternatives that align with circular economy principles.

4. The Legacy of Asbestos Use in Latvia

Since 1 January 2001, Latvia has prohibited the marketing and use of asbestos and asbestos-containing products. Latvia lacks natural deposits of asbestos minerals within its geological formations; therefore the country’s historical asbestos-containing products, particularly construction materials, were manufactured either through the processing of imported raw asbestos fibers or were introduced to the market as finished products through international trade channels.

A comprehensive assessment conducted in 2023 [52] regarding asbestos-containing waste volumes in Latvian municipalities, their management requirements, and the determination of potential support measures for households, revealed significant findings regarding asbestos-cement roofing materials. The study estimated approximately 1 million tons of asbestos-containing slate roofing materials across Latvia’s building stock. The spatial distribution shows notable regional variations: municipalities in Pieriga region contain up to approximately 10,000 tons, while other regions and major Latvian cities report volumes reaching 40,000 tons. The highest concentrations were identified in Riga and the Dienvidkurzeme region, with approximately 49,000 and 53,000 tons, respectively.

The distribution analysis revealed consistent patterns across municipalities regarding building type utilization, with approximately 60% of asbestos-containing roofing materials present on non-residential structures and 40% on residential buildings, though some municipalities showed slight deviations from this ratio. According to estimates, the average area of a building’s asbestos-cement (shingle) roof is approximately 140 m². This estimation is derived by dividing the total calculated area of asbestos-cement roofs by the total number of buildings. As of 1 January 2022, the total area of asbestos-cement roofs was calculated to be 83,578,533 m², while the total number of buildings was 597,901. Temporal analysis of roofing material volumes over the past seven years demonstrated heterogeneous trends across municipalities and building categories. The rate of change varied significantly, with some municipalities reporting an average decrease of 12%, while others documented increases of up to 4%.

The Latvian National Waste Management Plan 2021–2028 [53] sets national overarching goals in the field of waste management, aiming to ensure that generated waste is either non-hazardous or poses minimal risk to the environment and human health, by promoting restrictions on hazardous and environmentally harmful substances and improving consumer awareness. At the same time, as the only waste management solution for asbestos-containing waste in the medium term until 2028, the Plan envisions “Developing a proposal for a support mechanism for residents regarding the management of specific hazardous waste (asbestos-containing materials)”.

In the context of hazardous waste management including ACW, all stakeholders involved in the waste cycle are required to comply with four fundamental principles:

• Traceability: Stakeholders must ensure verifiable documentation demonstrating that hazardous waste can be traced throughout its lifecycle in accordance with the regulations established by the respective Member State.
• Prohibition of mixing: It is strictly forbidden to mix hazardous waste with other waste types to prevent unintended chemical reactions or a reduction in the effectiveness of treatment processes.
• Labeling and packaging requirements: Hazardous waste must be appropriately labeled and packaged in compliance with regulatory standards to ensure safe handling, transport, and storage.
• Specific requirements for facilities: Hazardous waste treatment plants and landfills are subject to specialized requirements to mitigate environmental and human health risks.

Furthermore, as stipulated by the Latvian Waste Management Law [54], the dilution or mixing of hazardous substances with other hazardous waste is expressly prohibited if the intent is to reduce the initial concentration of hazardous chemicals to a level where the waste would no longer meet the criteria for classification as hazardous. This provision underscores the critical importance of maintaining the integrity of hazardous waste management practices to prevent environmental degradation and ensure compliance with legal and safety standards.

Waste owners are responsible for ensuring that asbestos-containing waste (fibers or dust) is properly packaged and labeled in compliance with applicable European regulations and directives. During the transportation and disposal of waste containing asbestos fibers or dust, carriers or operators must process, package, and cover the waste in a manner that prevents the release of asbestos fibers or dust into the environment. Additionally, waste generators must bear the costs of asbestos waste disposal.

Asbestos-containing construction waste and other asbestos-containing waste may only be disposed of in designated sections of municipal solid waste landfills or in landfills specifically designed to accept asbestos-containing waste. In Latvia, asbestos-containing waste can be disposed of at ten designated landfills. Each landfill determines its own disposal fee for ACW as hazardous waste, reaching up to EUR 420 per ton, while the average disposal fee for municipal solid waste or construction demolition waste ranges between EUR 100 and 150 per ton. High disposal fees for asbestos-containing waste can inadvertently create significant illegal pollution risks through illegal dumping practices in vacant lots or remote areas; misclassification of waste as non-hazardous construction debris or inappropriate mixing with general construction waste to dilute its presence and avoid specialized disposal requirements and associated costs.

5. Materials and Methods

This study employed a mixed-method approach, integrating both theoretical and empirical research methodologies to provide a comprehensive analysis of the main challenges related to ACW diversion from landfilling and consequent long-term negative legacy for future generations. The theoretical foundation of this research was established through an extensive literature review, encompassing scholarly publications, existing policies and laws, as well as technical documentation relevant to the historical context of ACW and the associated management challenges. This review facilitated a thorough understanding of the evolution of asbestos use, its health and environmental implications, and the regulatory frameworks governing its management.

To ensure a rigorous examination of the subject matter, a multi-faceted analytical framework was adopted, integrating systematic, structural, and functional methods. Systematic analysis involved a systematic examination of the components and processes involved in ACW management; however, structural analysis covered interrelationships between various stakeholders involved in ACW management. Functional analysis examined the effectiveness of existing policies, regulations, and practices in managing ACW and their impact on public health and the environment. The research incorporated analysis of: national waste management policy, regulatory framework documents and guidelines related to ACW management; and EU directives and guidelines on hazardous waste management and technical documentation on ACW treatment technologies.

The empirical dimension of this research involved both quantitative and qualitative analysis approaches in two stages. In the first stage, a large-scale survey (n = 2005) designed to assess public awareness and attitudes towards construction and demolition waste (CDW) management, including ACW, at the household level in Latvia. This study employed a structured quantitative approach to investigate household practices and attitudes toward construction and renovation waste management in Latvia. The research targeted permanent residents of Latvia aged 18 to 75, using a Computer-Aided Web Interviewing (CAWI) method. A quota sampling strategy was applied to achieve a demographically balanced sample, stratified by region, gender, age, and ethnicity. The survey was conducted by the research agency SKDS using their online panel, which ensured national coverage.

The questionnaire comprised 65 closed- and open-ended questions, thematically grouped to follow the waste lifecycle—from the generation of construction and renovation waste, through disposal practices, to public awareness and attitudes toward sustainability. Question blocks included: (1) types and locations of renovation work; (2) waste types and volumes; (3) disposal and reuse practices; (4) awareness of environmental risks and legal responsibilities; and (5) preferences for information sources and willingness to pay for environmentally responsible services.

A notable inclusion was the treatment of asbestos-containing construction waste, which was addressed both explicitly and implicitly. Respondents were asked about their disposal practices for asbestos roofing sheets, and a specific scenario was presented to understand likely behavior in dealing with this hazardous material. Moreover, knowledge of asbestos as a hazardous waste category was tested alongside other known and misperceived waste types, offering insights into public awareness and potential risks of improper disposal.

The final sample consisted of 2005 respondents, of which 67% had direct experience with construction, renovation, demolition, or landscaping projects on personal or family-owned property. This subgroup served as a highly relevant population for examining real-world waste generation and disposal behavior. Detailed socio-demographic data—including income quintiles, education levels, household composition, and geographic location—were collected to assess representativeness and allow for comparative subgroup analysis. Consistency across respondents was maintained through the use of a standardized digital survey interface, eliminating interviewer effects and ensuring uniform question delivery. For open-text responses, coding was performed thematically post hoc, with grouped responses supporting the quantitative interpretation of qualitative inputs (e.g., under “Other ways of disposal”). To correct for sampling imbalances, weighting adjustments were applied post-survey based on region, ethnicity, age, and gender. Descriptive statistics and cross-tabulations were used to analyze the data, particularly to highlight differences in behavior and awareness across demographic groups. However, the absence of inferential or multivariate statistical methods (e.g., regression, factor analysis) is a limitation in terms of explaining causal relationships.

In the second research stage, a qualitative methodological framework was developed centered on expert interviews and document analysis to investigate the challenges and opportunities in sustainable ACW management in Latvia. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between January and March 2025 with eight key stakeholders representing diverse sectors involved in ACW management. The participant sample included:

• Three representatives from regulatory bodies (Ministry of Climate and Energy, State Environmental Service)
• Executives from three waste management companies
• Two environmental consultants specializing in hazardous waste management
• The interviews were conducted in person or via written communication. The interview protocol encompassed four main themes:
• Current ACW management practices and challenges
• Barriers to implementing alternative treatment technologies
• Potential for industrial symbiosis applications
• Policy and regulatory framework assessment

Interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic content analysis, following a three-step coding process:

• Open coding to identify initial concepts
• Axial coding to establish relationships between categories
• Selective coding to integrate findings into core themes

6. Results

6.1. Households Survey Data

Analysis of the households survey (n = 2005) data reveals that asbestos-containing roofing materials comprise up to 10% of the total CDW stream in households. The waste composition is dominated by cardboard and paper (61%), polyethylene film (49%), and wood materials (46%), reflecting typical patterns in renovation and construction activities. Metal and scrap metal (32%), concrete and reinforced concrete (27%), and glass (25%) represent moderate proportions of the waste stream (Figure 1).

Survey findings reveal that 81% of respondents correctly identified asbestos-containing roofing as hazardous waste requiring segregation from other construction waste materials, indicating a substantial level of public awareness regarding its hazardous properties. However, this awareness demonstrates a notable discrepancy with reported behavioral intentions: 28% of respondents indicated plans to reuse asbestos-containing sheets on their properties, while only 53% reported the intention to utilize professional waste management services for ACW disposal (Figure 2).

The study also clearly highlighted the necessity for developing a support program to assist residents in managing hazardous waste streams, with a particular emphasis on ACW (Figure 3):

6.2. Asbestos Safe Management Campaigns in Latvia (2024)

To address concerns about the insufficient information on health and safety risks associated with ACMs as demonstrated with the households survey, a public awareness campaign, “Let the old asbestos roof go!”, was implemented between February and May 2024. The campaign’s primary objective was to educate the public on the hazards posed by asbestos-containing materials and the potential health risks, while also emphasizing the significance of correct asbestos waste management practices. This included a focus on the essential safety precautions to be adhered to when handling asbestos-containing materials.

In May 2024, an Asbestos Removal Program was launched providing a comprehensive approach and financial support mechanism for the management of asbestos-containing slate materials, encompassing containment, transportation, and final disposal at licensed landfilling facilities. The eligibility under the program was restricted to households only that met low-income criteria for participation. Program parameters specified that participating households could dispose of between 0.2 tons (approximately 10–15 slate sheets) and 3.0 tons (roughly 150 slate sheets) of ACW. A fixed budget allocation of 350,000 EUR was designated for the asbestos removal support program. The funding available for the asbestos support program was distributed proportionally among the regions of Latvia, based on the estimated amount of asbestos-containing slate roofing in each region.

A total of 656 applications were received for the financial assistance. Support was granted to 271 households, and a total of 711.79 tons of asbestos-containing slate were removed. Due to limited funding, 257 applications were rejected. Additionally, 128 applications were denied for eligibility non-compliance (e.g., incomplete documentation or failure to meet income thresholds) (Figure 4).

6.3. Expert Interviews Data

All interviewed experts (8 out of 8) consistently recognized that the current reliance on landfilling for ACW in Latvia is misaligned with the principles of sustainable waste management and circular economy objectives. While this recognition reflects a growing awareness of the environmental and intergenerational risks associated with landfilling, the interviews revealed a substantial implementation gap between this theoretical understanding and practical progress. As one regulatory expert observed: “We understand that landfilling merely defers the problem to future generations, but there are not any alternative solutions in the Latvian market nor in the neighbouring countries to divert ACW from landfills.” This reflects the entrenched status of landfilling as the default strategy in the absence of viable treatment alternatives and a dedicated institutional commitment to change.

Experts identified a series of regulatory, economic, and technical barriers impeding the adoption of alternative ACW treatment technologies. A significant majority (7 out of 8) highlighted the lack of policy-level commitments, such as a national vision for achieving an asbestos-free future, as a fundamental obstacle. Moreover, 6 out of 8 experts noted that the current regulatory framework offers no incentives for innovation, nor does it provide a clear pathway for reclassifying treated ACW as non-hazardous—even when it has undergone physical or chemical transformation. Economic constraints were emphasized by all experts (8 out of 8), with the high capital investment required for treatment infrastructure and the absence of public financial mechanisms cited as critical deterrents. One waste management executive remarked: “Such an investment would be extremely adventurous without a clear vision of estimated ACW flows and certainty regarding the market for secondary products.” Additionally, 5 out of 8 experts stressed that Latvia’s small market size limits the feasibility of standalone national solutions, reinforcing the need for regional cooperation with neighboring countries to achieve cost-effective operations. On the technical front, 6 out of 8 experts cited significant gaps in local expertise and knowledge, which inhibit the implementation of advanced treatment technologies. As one environmental consultant noted: “These technologies require specialized expertise that would be hard to find in Latvia, creating a capability barrier in addition to the economic and regulatory obstacles.” Regarding technical challenges, 6 out of 8 experts pointed to substantial knowledge and expertise gaps within Latvia’s waste management sector, which hinder the implementation of advanced treatment technologies. As one environmental consultant explained: “These technologies require specialized expertise that would be hard to find in Latvia, creating a capability barrier in addition to the economic and regulatory obstacles.”

The potential for industrial symbiosis, where treated ACW could be repurposed as input material in manufacturing processes, remains largely untapped. While 5 out of 8 experts acknowledged its theoretical appeal, they stressed the existence of formidable practical barriers. One waste management executive remarked: “The concept of industrial symbiosis for ACW is compelling, but implementation would be challenging due to both psychological and technical barriers. Converting ACW into viable input materials requires sophisticated processing technologies that may not be economically feasible at Latvia’s current waste volumes.” Finally, occupational health and safety risks emerged as a key concern for all experts (8 out of 8), who unanimously emphasized that occupational health and safety, as well as the broader protection of public health, must remain a foundational principle in any future ACW management strategy. This underscores the delicate balance required between advancing resource recovery objectives and maintaining stringent health and safety standards—especially given the lack of established treatment technologies with proven safety records in Latvia.

7. Discussion

The preceding analysis of asbestos treatment technologies indicates that their real-world implementation remains highly constrained despite theoretical potential. Thermal treatment, particularly plasma vitrification, as demonstrated by the INERTAM facility in France, represents the most mature alternative to landfilling, successfully transforming hazardous asbestos fibers into inert material suitable for civil engineering applications. However, even this most advanced technology faces significant adoption barriers, including high capital investment requirements and operational costs due to substantial energy consumption, and the need for specialized technical expertise. The literature also underscores the potential benefits of using other innovative ACW treatment methods such as chemical and thermochemical processes. However, despite their promising laboratory-scale outcomes, challenges related to safety in chemical handling, secondary waste treatment, and unfavorable process economics have so far prevented these technologies from being widely implemented on an industrial scale. Continued research is necessary to optimize these processes, reduce associated hazards, and lower operational costs, which may eventually facilitate their integration into full-scale ACW management applications.

The households survey (n = 2005) conducted in Autumn 2022, as the first stage of the research, demonstrates a significant implementation gap between knowledge and intended behavior in proper ACW management practices. The findings underscore the necessity for enhanced policy interventions that not only maintain public awareness, but also effectively address barriers to proper disposal. These may include economic incentives, improved accessibility to professional waste management services, and stronger enforcement mechanisms to discourage unsafe reuse practices. Future waste management strategies should focus on bridging this knowledge–behavior gap to ensure more effective hazardous waste management practices among property owners.

The Asbestos Removal Program developed and implemented in 2024 and targeting segmented households stands as a successful pilot project in addressing the health and environmental risks associated with asbestos-containing materials in Latvia. Implemented with the financial support of the European Union’s LIFE program, the program has effectively demonstrated the feasibility and benefits of a coordinated approach to asbestos removal and disposal in the household sector. The continued public interest in asbestos removal services underscores the ongoing need for such initiatives and highlights the importance of continued government support to ensure the safe and responsible management of asbestos-containing materials. The Latvian Ministry of Climate and Energy has publicly declared its commitment to exploring further solutions for asbestos management. However, the long-term sustainability of these efforts hinges on securing adequate financing. One potential solution to address this funding gap could involve a differentiated landfill tax structure. This approach would entail a higher tax on recyclable waste materials, incentivizing increased recycling rates and reducing the volume of waste destined for landfills. Conversely, lower tax rates could be applied to inert non-recyclable waste and hazardous materials such as asbestos, for which landfilling may be the only viable disposal option. Such a differentiated tax structure could generate additional revenue for the management of hazardous materials like asbestos, while simultaneously promoting more sustainable waste management practices. The availability of adequate funding will be crucial to enabling the continuation and expansion of asbestos removal initiatives, ensuring the protection of public health and the preservation of the environment.

The expert interviews conducted in 2025 highlights a significant implementation gap between expert awareness of the risks of landfilling ACW and actual policy or technological progress in Latvia. Despite consensus on the need for sustainable alternatives, systemic barriers—including the absence of a national asbestos-free vision, rigid regulatory frameworks, economic disincentives, and limited technical capacity—continue to hinder innovation. Latvia’s small market size further reduces the feasibility of standalone solutions, pointing to the need for regional cooperation. While the concept of industrial symbiosis offers theoretical promise, it remains practically unviable under current conditions. Across all considerations, the protection of occupational and public health emerges as a non-negotiable priority, underscoring the importance of safety-driven innovation in future ACW management strategies. Further research is needed to explore viable models for regional collaboration, policy incentives for hazardous waste innovation, and the socio-technical feasibility of industrial symbiosis in small economies.

8. Conclusions

While asbestos roofing may constitute a smaller proportion (up to 10%) of the overall CDW stream in Latvia, the estimated presence of around 1 million tons of ACM and millions of tons of ACM still exploited in other European countries, necessitates the implementation of targeted management strategies and appropriate disposal practices to minimize environmental and health risks. The survey findings reveal a dichotomy in public perception. While the majority of respondents at household level (81%) recognized the need for separate handling of ACW from other construction waste and acknowledged the associated health hazards, a concerning proportion (28%) expressed acceptability for reusing asbestos-containing roofing slates within their properties instead of opting for proper disposal. This finding underscores the critical need for comprehensive public education campaigns and the strict enforcement of regulations to ensure the proper segregation, handling, and disposal of hazardous asbestos waste.

Furthermore, the households survey highlighted financial constraints as the primary anticipated challenge in achieving widespread asbestos removal with 91% respondents supporting such state-funded initiative. The pilot Asbestos Removal Program, introduced in 2024, demonstrated a significant demand for such initiatives, yet only 271 households meeting low-income criteria benefited from the program, while a similar number of applications were rejected due to limited funding. This underscores the need for expanded financial support and the exploration of innovative funding mechanisms to broaden program accessibility. In this regard, a crucial component is the availability of financing resources to continue asbestos removal program.

The success of the pilot program in Latvia providing financial initiative for the disposal of ACW at the household level offers a valuable model for other countries facing similar challenges related to asbestos management. By adapting and replicating key elements of this program, such as targeted financial assistance, public awareness campaigns, and robust regulatory frameworks, other nations can effectively address the risks associated with asbestos and promote a healthier and more sustainable environment.

Despite the emergence of thermal treatment as a scientifically validated and widely recognized method for asbestos inertization, the current national institutional and legal framework continues to reinforce landfill disposal as the dominant—and legally mandated—approach. This systemic inertia is driven by several interrelated factors: (1) the exclusive prescription of landfill disposal in Latvian legislation; (2) the absence of market-based incentives for the adoption of alternative treatment technologies; (3) a regulatory orientation that prioritizes containment over transformation; and (4) a risk-averse culture in ACW management decision-making. To move beyond this landfill-centric paradigm, a comprehensive reform of Latvia’s institutional and regulatory framework is essential. Transitioning to advanced treatment methods—such as thermal inertization—will likely require coordinated regional efforts with neighboring Baltic states to achieve the economies of scale necessary for economic feasibility. Furthermore, regulatory adjustments are needed to explicitly recognize and incentivize treatment-based solutions.

The expert recommendations suggest the introduction of targeted economic instruments to support private investment in thermal treatment infrastructure. Clear regulatory guidelines for asbestos inertization facilities, the development of technical standards for treated materials, and the creation of certification schemes for thermal treatment operators are also critical to enabling market development and ensuring safe implementation. To facilitate a successful transition, policymakers are encouraged to initiate pilot projects that demonstrate the technological efficacy and economic viability of thermal treatment in the Latvian context. These pilots should be accompanied by targeted capacity-building programs for waste management professionals and a national awareness campaign aimed at increasing public understanding of the environmental and public health benefits of sustainable ACW management.

Ultimately, these findings underscore the need for an integrated policy framework that addresses both institutional and technical barriers, supports continued state-funded ACM removal programs—especially at the household level—and promotes further research into economically viable business models that can drive innovation and sustainability in the ACW sector.