The rapporteur on the directive on occupational exposure to asbestos, French MEP Véronique Trillet-Lenoir (Renew Europe), and the other European Parliament shadow rapporteurs agreed, on Wednesday 1 March in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, to disagree on the exposure limit value chosen by the MEP, but found many other points of consensus and expressed confidence that compromises could be reached (see EUROPE 13115/14).
The MEP’s ambition is to have her report voted on and thus obtain a negotiating mandate with the EU Council on 13 April.
But she acknowledged on Wednesday that the longest discussions would be on the exposure limit value as well as on the method chosen to calculate it. The MEP kept the value proposed by the European Commission, i.e. 0.01 fibres per cm3 while the main groups in the European Parliament want to go back to the report by Danish MEP, Nikolaj Villumsen (The Left), adopted in 2021 which advocated for a value of 0.001.
This MEP reiterated his position on Wednesday, estimating that a compromise would have to be found on “the limit value, the calculation method and the transition period (for adopting a new calculation method)”, but “we can already see the lines of an agreement”, he said.
On the choice of electron microscopy technology, opinions diverge on the specific choice of the so-called transmission method, which the French MEP prefers.
The three -year transition period given to authorities and construction companies to implement this new asbestos fibre detection method is also problematic for some groups, who feel that this will not be possible without strong financial support. Businesses may have to close, ID Group said.
“There is a very clear majority in favour of 90% of my report”, the MEP said, with amendments (250 in total) “identical on training, certification of companies, requirements to avoid the disappearance of asbestos fibres in the air or updating of data for medical surveillance”.
But on the exposure limit value, the rapporteur maintained her position that lowering the value would be counterproductive. “Setting the exposure value too low with less efficient calculation techniques could lead to false negative and false reassurance values”, she argued. It could also lead to the failure to detect all carcinogenic fibres and thus ultimately harm workers. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)