5 Amendments of Alexandr VONDRA related to 2019/2182(INL)
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that asbestos diseasedifferent cancers and various diseases of the lungs have been observed in populations living or having lived in the vicinity of industrial sites or premises with degraded flockingfriable asbestos;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission to set out a European strategy for the complete elimination of asbestos; calls on all Member States to adopt national action plans to implBelieves that additional European legislation is not the right approach to control asbestos; considers a non- legislative approach that improves the awareness of asbestos risks, educates employers and workers on the legislative requirements that strategy; consalready exist, and providers that the Commission should coordinate the national action plans, in particular through the adoption of a framework directive on thipractical guidance on how to comply with those requirements would be a far more effective approach in reducing exposure to asbestos; notes moreover that this approach could be targeted to areas of particular risk, or groups of vulnerable people, and involve the social partners and other stakeholders matter EU, national and regional levels;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Is of the opinion that before any additions to existing EU legislative requirements can be considered, robust scientific evidence of the need for change must be provided, supported by a thorough impact assessment clearly setting out costs and benefits;
Amendment 116 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. The establishment of a European framework for public and accessible asbestos registers, together with a mapping of the exact location of asbestos on public and private siteswhich could start at the local level for public buildings and public infrastructure;
Amendment 119 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. A roadmap for asbestos-free workplaces and an asbestos-free environreviewing the effectiveness of all existing legal requirements, which could establish priority secacknowledges, as part of this evaluation, that as long as asbestors and be subject to periodic evaluation every five years of the progress made by the national and regional authoritieasbestos-containing materials are in good condition or encapsulated and not likely to be disturbed, then for safety reasons it is better to leave them in place and manage any resulting risks. Recalls that if asbestos is in poor condition and is likely to be disturbed, then removal could be required, but this should be based on an assessment of the risk on a case-by-case basis;