ToxicsWatch Alliance
To
Dr Manmohan Singh
Prime Minister
Cabinet Committee on Economic
Affairs (CCEA)
Government of India
New Delhi
Mrs Sonia Gandhi
Chairperson
National Advisory Council
Government of India
New Delhi
Date: May 13, 2013
Subject: White chrysotile
asbestos is a hazardous substance
Dear Dr Singh and Mrs Gandhi,
This is to draw your attention towards
the volte face in matter of hazardous white chrysotile asbestos by the Indian
delegation at the sixth meeting on UN's Rotterdam Convention on the Prior
Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in
International Trade which concluded on May 10, 2013. In a bizarre act the
delegation claimed that the domestic studies by National Institute of
Occupational Health (NIOH), Ahmedabad show no hazards from white chrysotile
asbestos. I had written a letter to the head of the Indian delegation arguing
why India needs to support inclusion of white asbestos in the UN list of hazardous
substances. Indian laws include asbestos in the list of hazardous substances
but the Indian delegation took a diametrically opposite position revealing undue
influence.
I submit that according to the
most recent International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monograph on
asbestos (IARC
2009), “there is sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of
all forms of asbestos (chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite, tremolite, actinolite,
and anthophyllite).” IARC is part of the World Health Organization (WHO).
I submit that a letter of Shri B
N Mehta, the then Chief Inspector of Factories, Gujarat State dated December
24, 2002 in the matter of execution of the order of Supreme Court in Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 206 of 1986 categorically reveals that two workers of
Gujarat Composites Ltd were confirmed for Asbestosis, an incurable lung disease
by NIOH. The workers were (1) Shri Hazarilal Manraj and (2) Shri Sahejram B
Yadav. The letter recommended compensation of Rs 1 lakh as per the Court order
but till date the same has not been given. This and many such cases
conclusively establish the hazards from asbestos. Influence of the asbestos
industry becomes quite obvious when Government turns a blind eye to such
glaring official facts. This is also a
clear case of contempt of court by the asbestos based company. It may be noted
that Gujarat Composite Ltd (formerly named Digvijay Cement Company) appears to
be attempting to hide behind myriad corporate veils by changing names and by
outsourcing its work. This is what the industry did in more than 50 countries
but failed to avoid the inevitability of ban on all kinds of asbestos including
white asbestos. The attached letter demonstrates
that asbestos is a hazardous substance which causes asbestos related incurable
diseases.
I submit that Indian delegation’s
position with regard to asbestos is contrary to Indian laws in practice.
Asbestos is listed as a hazardous substance under Part II of Schedule-I
of the Manufacture, Storage and import of
Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 provides
the List of Hazardous and Toxic Chemicals.
This list has 429 chemicals, asbestos is at the serial no. 28 in the list. This
Rule and the list is available on the website of Union Ministry of Environment
& Forests.
Its url is: http://envfor.nic.in/legis/hsm/hsm2.html http://envfor.nic.in/legis/hsm/hsm2sch1.html
I submit that INVENTORY OF HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS IMPORT IN INDIA prepared
by
Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), under Union Ministry of
Environment & Forests, Govt. of India prepared in September, 2008 with a
foreword September 24, 2008 by Shri J. M. Mauskar, the then Chairman, CPCB and Additional
Secretary, Union Ministry of Environment & Forests lists ‘asbestos’ at serial
no. 26 as one of the 180 hazardous chemicals in international trade which is
imported in India. This was done pursue
of Government of India’s “Manufacture, Storage, and Import of Hazardous
Chemicals (MSIHC) Rules, 1989” under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
According to these Rules, any person responsible for importing hazardous
chemicals in India is to provide the data of import to the concerned
authorities, as identified in Column 2 of Schedule 5 to the Rules. The CPCB “has
been identified as one of such Authorities. In order to study the inventory of
Hazardous Chemicals being imported by various categories of industrial units in
India, the data provided by these industrial units to the Central Pollution
Control Board (CPCB) have been compiled.” It is scandalous as to why did the
Indian delegation took a position inconsistent with the Manufacture, Storage,
and Import of Hazardous Chemicals (MSIHC) Rules, 1989. The CPCB’s inventory is
attached.
I submit that under Factories Act, 1948, the List of 29 industries involving
hazardous processes is given under Section 2 (cb), Schedule First, asbestos is
mentioned at serial no. 24. The Act
defines "hazardous process" as “any process or activity in relation
to an industry specified in the First Schedule where, unless special care is
taken, raw materials used therein or the intermediate or finished products,
bye-products, wastes or effluents thereof would--(i) cause material impairment
to the health of the persons engaged in or connected therewith, or (ii) result
in the pollution of the general environment”.
This leaves no doubt that asbestos is a hazardous substance. The Act is available
at:
I submit that the Indian
delegation was joined by supporters of asbestos industry. It is quite apparent
that the industry representatives overwhelmed the government representatives who
were made to take position against human health and the environment and to put
profit of the asbestos industry before gnawing public health concerns.
I submit that earlier, on June
22, 2011 Indian delegation led by Ms. Mira Mehrishi, Additional Secretary, had
supported the listing of Chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous chemical substance
at the fifth meeting on Rotterdam Convention amidst standing ovation.
I submit that I had taken the
opportunity of congratulating you and your government but this about turn is a
sad let down. I have learnt from officials and scientists who go to such
meetings that they feel humiliated when the industry representatives give them
directions instead of the senior government officials or ministers. The UN meet
on hazardous chemicals creates a rationale for insulating government officials
from undue and motivated industry influence else they will be obliged to act
like parrots. The role of Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) in such
matters must factor in far reaching implications for public health before
defending the indefensible hazardous asbestos industry. The day is not far when
members of CCEA too will be held liable for their acts of omission and
commission as is happening in more than 50 countries that have banned all kinds
of asbestos.
I submit that the Chemical Review Committee of
Rotterdam Convention has recommended listing of white chrysotile asbestos as
hazardous substance despite that it has not been included in the list for the
fourth time. Chrysotile asbestos represents 100% of the global asbestos trade
and, over the past one hundred years, 95% of all asbestos traded was chrysotile
asbestos. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that all forms of
asbestos, including chrysotile asbestos, are hazardous to health. But for the
past many decades, the asbestos industry covered up and denied the scientific
evidence that all asbestos can cause disease and death. As a consequence,
millions of people have lost their lives and continue to lose them. There is a
case going on against the white asbestos in the National Human Rights
Commission, New Delhi wherein the applicant has demanded inclusion of white
asbestos in the UN list.
I submit that if what the Indian delegation has
been made to say at the UN meet is indeed the case then how is it that Union
Environment Ministry’s Vision Statement that says, “Alternatives to asbestos
may be used to the extent possible and use of asbestos may be phased out”. The
vision statement is available on ministry’s website.
I submit that the Terms of Reference (TOR) that
is awarded by the Experts Appraisal Committee (EAC), Industrial Project, Union
Ministry of Environment & Forests for Chrysotile asbestos based roofing
factory asks the project proponent to prepare a “Health Management Plan for
Mesothelmia, Lung cancer and Asbestosis related problems in asbestos
industries” revealing its hazardous nature.
I submit that given the fact that the delegation
represents the voice of Government of India, how does the Indian delegation
respond to the concept paper by Union Ministry of Labour presented at the 5th
India-EU Joint Seminar on “Occupational Safety and Health” saying "The
Government of India is considering the ban on use of chrysotile asbestos in
India to protect the workers and the general population against primary and
secondary exposure to Chrysotile form of Asbestos." It has noted that
"Asbestosis is yet another occupational disease of the Lungs which is on
an increase under similar circumstances warranting concerted efforts of all
stake holders to evolve strategies to curb this menace". The paper is
available on Ministry’s website.
May I ask if white chrysotile asbestos is not
hazardous why its ban and phase out is recommended?
I submit that the Indian
delegation comprised of Shri Ajay Tyagi, Joint Secretary Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Ms. Chhanda Chowdhury, Director, Hazardous Substances
Management Division, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Mr. Ram Niwas Jindal,
Additional Director, Hazardous Substances Management Division, Ministry of
Environment and Forests and Mr. Vinod Babu Bommathula, Scientist-D
& In-Charge, Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment
besides asbestos industry lobbyists like Mr. Abhaya Shankar, Chairman, Asbestos
Cement Products Manufacturers’ Association and Vivek Chandra Rao Sripalle,
Director, Safety Health and Environment, Asbestos Cement Products
Manufacturers’ Association. The industry’s influence on the delegation is quite
manifest. It also merits attention as to whether the industry representatives went
to this UN conference on their own expense or government sponsored their visit.
It may be noted that he
Competition Commission of India (CCI) is probing alleged cartelisation in the
market for asbestos cement sheets, which is mainly used in rural areas for low
cost houses and warehouses. The fair trade regulator has said that various
factors including high concentration in the market, product homogeneity and
“active association of manufacturers” led to the decision of investigating
anti-competitive practices in that industry. Competition Commission of India’s
investigation arm — Director General (DG) — is looking into the matter.
“The role of the Asbestos Cement
Products Manufacturers Association (ACPMA) is under scanner for facilitating
the cartel and controlling production volumes and sale prices. “The Commission
has taken suo motu cognizance of alleged anti-competitive conduct of ACPMA,”
CCI said in its latest quarterly newsletter. It noted that asbestos cement
sheets are widely used for roofs in low cost houses, sheds and warehouses. “The
market of asbestos cement sheets consists of 20 big firms and 68 manufacturing
units, of which top six players hold 87 per cent of the market share,” CCI
added. It said the probe was triggered after a reference from the Serious Fraud
Investigation Office (SFIO). CCI keeps a tab on anti competitive practices
across sectors. This has been reported in business newspapers.
I submit that on its website ACPMA
reveals, “The Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers Association (ACPMA) is a
non-profit organization and is registered with the Registrar of Societies under
Indian Societies Act 1860. The Association was formed in 1985 with an objective
to aid, stimulate and advise promotion of Chrysotile Asbestos Cement Products
(Sheets and Pipes) in India. ACPMA is affiliated to International Chrysotile
Association, (ICA), USA. ICA is an international body formed by various country
Associations and has a membership of 23 countries prominent being Canada,
Brazil, China, Russia, Mexico amongst others. ICA actively represents the
interest of Chrysotile Industry world over…”
The website admits, “ACPMA
regularly receives from ICA latest information on various technical, scientific
and health related issues connected with the safe use of Chrysotile. All such
information is disseminated amongst Members and others connected with the
Industry including Govt. regulatory bodies.” The website refers to its
membership stating, “ACPMA currently has 15 Members having 51 manufacturing
units located in various States providing direct and indirect employment to
approximately 300,000 (Three Lakh) persons and having a gross annual turnover
of approx Rs.4500/- crores.” It refers to a URL saying, “To view the list of
members alongwith their office address”. The URL shows 18 members instead of
15. These are A INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, ASSAM ROOFING LTD, EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD, HYDERABAD
IND. LTD, JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD, SAHYADRI INDUSTRIES LTD, RAMCO INDUSTRIES
LTD, TAMILNADU CEMENTS CORPN. LTD, U P ASBESTOS LTD, UAL INDUSTRIES LTD, ‘KONARK
MANI UDAY’, VISAKA INDUSTRIES LTD, STURDY INDUSTRIES LTD, VILSON ROOFING
PRODUCTS PVT.LTD, NORTH EAST ROOFING LTD, ARL INFRATECH LTD, SRI VENKATESWARA
PIPES LTD, ROOFIT INDUSTRIES LTD and MRK PIPES LTD.
I submit that the question which
merits attention is how is it that these profit making companies when they
become members of the Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers Association
(ACPMA) turn into “a non-profit organization and is registered with the
Registrar of Societies under Indian Societies Act 1860”. Essentially, its claim
of being a non-profit NGO is factually incorrect. This appears to be an act of
fraudulent representation.
I submit that instead of letting
ACPMA undertake the exercise of defending the profit making enterprises of
these hazardous asbestos based companies, concerned ministries must consider
asking each of these companies to file submissions about the environmental and
occupational health status of the workers in their factories and the health
records of the workers who have retired in compliance with the Hon’ble Supreme
Court order of 1995.
I submit that briefing me about the goings at the
UN Meet in Geneva, Dr Barry Castleman, a noted expert of asbestos who has
worked with WHO and World Bank in an email communication from Geneva informed,
"The Indians distinguished themselves by objecting to the listing of
chrysotile, Paraquat and PFOA. There were 2 representatives of the
asbestos industry from India there. The gov spokesman insisted that there
was a study from NIOH that showed things were OK in the Indian asbestos
industry and bristled when I told him that was scandalously influenced by the
asbestos industry" on May 8, 2013. It may be noted that Supreme Court’s
judgment of January 27, 1995 in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 206 of 1986 that
directed Government of India “to review the standards of permissible exposure
limit value of fibre/cc in tune with the international standards reducing the
permissible content as prayed in the writ petition referred to at the
beginning. The review shall be continued after every 10 years and also as and
when the ILO gives directions in this behalf consistent with its
recommendations or any Conventions”. This judgment quotes Dr Castleman’s book,
Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects.
I wish to draw your attention
towards this judgment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated January
21, 2011at paragraph 14 said:
“....In the earlier judgment of this Court in the
case of Consumer Education and Research Centre (supra), hazards arising out of
primary use of asbestos were primarily dealt with, but certainly secondary
exposure also needs to be examined by the Court. In that judgment, the Court
had noticed that it would, thus, be clear that diseases occurred wherever the
exposure to the toxic or carcinogenic agent occurs, regardless of the country,
type of industry, job title, job assignment or location of exposure. The
diseases will follow the trail of the exposure and extend the chain of the
carcinogenic risk beyond the work place. In that judgment, the Court had also
directed that a review by the Union and the States shall be made after every
ten years and also as and when the ILO gives directions
in this behalf consistent with its recommendations or conventions. Admittedly,
15 years has expired since the issuance of the directions by this Court. The ILO also made certain specific directions vide its resolution of 2006 adopted in the 95th session of the
International Labour Conference. It introduced a ban on all mining,
manufacture, recycling and use of all forms of asbestos. As already noticed,
serious doubts have been raised as to whether `controlled use' can be
effectively implemented even with regard to secondary exposure. These are
circumstances which fully require the concerned quarters/authorities in the
Government of India as well as the State Governments to examine/review the
matter in accordance with law, objectively, to achieve the greater health care
of the poor strata of the country who are directly or indirectly engaged in
mining or manufacturing activities of asbestos and/or allied products.” The
Supreme Court in its judgment dated January 21, 2011 in Writ Petition (Civil)
No.260 of 2004 referred to its directions of January 27, 1995 in the Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 206 of 1986 that are required to be strictly adhered to
including fresh International Labour Organisation (ILO) resolution on Asbestos dated June 14, 2006 that seeks
elimination of all kinds of asbestos.
I submit that in a related development, on April
2, 2013 in a precedent-setting decision, the Israel's High Court of Justice
rejected a petition on against a law placing substantial financial
responsibility on a company to clean up asbestos waste. The order observed, “In
recent years, countries throughout the world have been required to deal with
different dilemmas related to protecting the quality of the
environmental. A substantial portion of these dilemmas involve, among
other things, legal, economic and ethical considerations. Amongst these dilemmas,
the removal of hazardous waste – the matter at the heart of the present appeal
– is a subject that demands significant attention. Asbestos, in
particular, has proved itself to be efficient and strong, suitable for many
uses. However, it has become clear with time that its ability to cause
damage immeasurably outweighs its potential benefits. Since the 20th
century, different states have dealt with this matter of how to clean up the
environment from asbestos, and onthe questions of who to impose the
responsibility and who to require to pay for the implementation.
Consequently, I have found it appropriate to first turn our perspective on the
relevant legal regimes in a few key countries beyond our borders.” It
ruled that "To conclude, the survey presented (of various international
legal perspectives) indicates various and complimentary components. In
all instances it appears a consensus has been established, certainly so with
regards to materials hazardous by their very nature such as asbestos, that
substantial responsibility is to be imposed on the pollutant."
I am also attaching the text of the speech of
Justice (retd) Rekha Kumari, President of the Mahavir Cancer Institute and
Research Centre, Patna which was delivered at the Conference on Environmental
and Occupational Health at A N Sinha Institute for Social Studies which underlines
how Hon’ble Court’s order for incorporating ILO’s fresh resolution has not been
complied with to protect public health.
I submit that in March 2011, while on a visit to
New Delhi, Dr Alec Farquhar, the then Managing Director, Occupational Health
Clinics for Ontario Workers, Canada said, “We now have around 500 asbestos
cancer cases every year in Ontario from a population of 13 million. If you
(India) continue on your current path, you will multiply our death count by 100
times. That would be 50, 000 Indian workers dying every year from asbestos. In
Ontario, we learned that safe use of asbestos is impossible. I urge you from
the bottom of my hear, please do not make the same mistake as we made in
Canada. Stop using asbestos and use a safe alternative.” It is clear that lack
of documentation and lack of environmental and occupational health
infrastructure does not mean lack of victims of asbestos related diseases.
In such a backdrop, documents unearthed under the
Right to Information Act revealed how white chrysotile asbestos industry added
Rs. 16 lakh to the government’s Rs. 44 lakh for
a study titled ‘Implementation of Rotterdam Convention on Prior
Informed Consent Procedures — Study of Health Hazards/Environment Hazards
Resulting from the Use of Chrysotile Variety of Asbestos in the Country’ by
NIOH to “specifically indicate how technology has made working conditions [in
asbestos factories] better.” The minutes of the Review Committee for the NIOH
study obtained through the RTI application dated December 19, 2006, read: “The
report will be finalised after due discussions with the asbestos industry.”
Another meeting minutes, dated April 18, 2007, report that “...the results of
the study which was under way could not be shared [with public] till the same
was finalised.” A letter dated April 24, 2006 from Under Secretary to the
Government of India, Dept. of Chemicals and Petrochemicals, Union Ministry of
Chemicals and Fertilisers to Director, NIOH: “the deliverables will include
generation of data which would justify the safe standards of its usage as also
the reasons/rationale justifying its non-inclusion/or otherwise in the PIC
ambit…”
I submit that if one takes cognizance of these
developments, it is evident that the Indian delegation has committed the sin of
belittling India’s stature by citing an admittedly tainted and grossly conflict
of interest ridden scientific study that was finalised after discussions with
vested corporate interests. This incident creates a compelling logic for a high
level probe to ascertain how India’s position was influenced like the NIOH
study due to the presence of two representatives in the Indian delegation.
Therefore, given the fact that the decision with
regard to India’s position at the UN meeting involves several ministries, I
urge you to order an inquiry to comprehend the unsound and unscientific act of
the Indian delegation with regard to white chrysotile asbestos to set matters
right.
I will happy to share more information in this
regard
Thanking You
Yours faithfully
(Gopal Krishna)
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
New Delhi
Mb: 9818089660
E-mail: gopalkrishna1715@gmail.com
Web: www.toxicswatch.org
Cc
Shri Kamal Nath, Hon’ble Member, Cabinet Committee on Economic
Affairs (CCEA)
Shri Sushilkumar Shinde, Hon’ble
Member, Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA)
Mrs Jayanthi Natarajan, Hon’ble
Member, Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA)
Shri Jairam Ramesh, Hon’ble Member,
Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA)
Dr. Farooq Abdullah, Union Minister
of New & Renewable Energy
Shri Prakash Karat, General
Secretary, Communist Party of India (Marxist)
Shri Suravaram Sudhakar Reddy,
General Secretary, Communist Party of India
Shri Sharad Pawar, President,
Nationalist Congress Party
Shri Sharad Yadav, President,
Janata Dal (United)
Shri Mulyam Singh Yadav, President,
Samajwadi Party
Kumari Mayawati, Chairperson, BSP
Parliamentary Party
Cabinet
Secretary, Government of India
Chief Minister, Government of Bihar
Chief Minister, Government of
Tripura
Chief Minister, Government of Uttar
Pradesh
Chief Minister, Government of Tamil
Nadu
Chief Minister, Government of
Punjab
Chief Minister, Government of Goa
Chief Minister, Government of West
Bengal
Chief Minister, Government of
Madhya Pradesh
Chief Minister, Government of
Odisha
Hon’ble Governor, Government of
Jharkhand
Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs
Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance
Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law & Justice
Chairman, Public Accounts Committee
Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence
Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs
Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture
Hon’ble Members of Parliament
Comptroller & Auditor General
of India
Lt Governor, Government of National
Capital Territory of Delhi
Chief Secretary, Government of
Andhra Pradesh
Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar
Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh
Chief Secretary, Government of Goa
Chief Secretary, Government of
Gujarat
Chief Secretary, Government of
Haryana,
Chief Secretary, Government of
Himachal Pradesh
Chief Secretary, Government of
Jammu and Kashmir
Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand
Chief Secretary, Government of
Karnataka
Chief Secretary, Government of
Kerala
Chief Secretary, Government of
Madhya Pradesh
Chief Secretary, Government of
Maharashtra
Chief Secretary, Government of
Orissa
Chief Secretary, Government of
Punjab
Chief Secretary, Government of
Rajasthan
Chief Secretary, Government of
Tamil Nadu
Chief Secretary, Government of
Uttar Pradesh
Chief Secretary, Government of
Uttarakhand
Chief Secretary, Government of West
Bengal
Chief Secretary, Government of
Puducherry
Chief Secretary, Government of
Arunachal Pradesh
Chief Secretary, Government of
Assam
Chief Secretary, Government of
Manipur
Chief Secretary, Government of
Meghalaya
Chief Secretary, Government of
Mizoram
Chief Secretary, Government of
Nagaland
Chief Secretary, Government of
Sikkim
Chief Secretary, Government of
Tripura
Chief Secretary, Government of
Andaman and Nicobar (UT)
Administrator, Government of Dadra
and Nagar Haveli (UT)
Administrator, Government of Daman and
Diu (UT)
Administrator, Government of
Lakshadweep (UT)
Post a Comment