ToxicsWatch Alliance welcomes total import ban on White Chrysotile Asbestos by USA after 35 years

India has banned mining of White Chrysotile Asbestos, not its trade, manufacture, use

 

Who compelled India to buy asbestos laden property in Washington D.C.?

  

ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), a member of Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI) welcomes total import ban on White Chrysotile Asbestos, a mineral fiber that causes laryngeal cancer, lung cancer, mesothelioma, and ovarian cancer by USA under the the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) which was amended in 2016. The new TCSA law provides the US Environment Protection Agency (USEPA) with more authority to restrict or ban commercial chemicals. The chrysotile asbestos ban is the first rule under the amended toxic chemical safety law. Unlike India which has imposed a partial ban on White Chrysotile Asbestos, US Environmental Protection Agency has announced that it is banning import of White Chrysotile Asbestos for all of the purposes for which these mineral fibers is used. 

 

 “The science is clear. There is simply no safe level of exposure to asbestos”, asserted Michael Regan, the 16th Administrator of USEPA, in a press conference while announcing the decision. Empowered by the amendment in TCSA, Washington, DC based US Environment Protection Agency (USEPA) has gone beyond its 35 years old 55 page long regulation dated July 12, 1989,  which had prohibited “the future manufacture, importation, processing, and distribution in commerce of asbestos in almost all products”under Section 6 of the Toxic Substances. Control Act (TSCA), 1976. But this 1989 prohibition was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on October 25, 1991. Sadly, the Court decision was not appealed by the US President George H.W. Bush administration.

 

It is because of the tireless altruistic work of Washington, D.C based Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) and public health scholars like Dr. Barry Castleman, the author of Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects, Prof. Arthur L. Frank and Prof. David Michaels, the author of Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health that made the USEPA  to announce the final Part 1 rule prohibiting the importation and use of one type of white chrysotile as a significant step towards safeguarding the public health of present and future citizens of USA. Linda Reinstein, co-founder and president of ADAO has underlined that the rule has limited scope because it addresses only one of the six conditions. As a next step, the USEPA must restrict importation and use of five other recognized asbestos fibers, namely, crocidolite, amosite, anthophyllite, tremolite, and actinolite. She said,“Users of raw asbestos and asbestos-containing brake blocks and gaskets in the chlor-alkali, brake block, chemical and refining sectors will finally be required to transition to non-asbestos technology, but we are alarmed that the rule allows an unnecessarily long transition period and creates inconsistent compliance deadlines for certain asbestos users, which will allow dangerous exposure to chrysotile asbestos to continue for years to come.”

 

Drawing on press release issued by US EPA on its rule to ban asbestos in diaphragm-cell chlor-alkali plants and in imported gaskets and brake parts, Dr. Castleman said, "The rule says nothing about the most widely produced asbestos products in the world today, asbestos-cement sheets and pipes, as EPA was not able to identify A-C product use in the US (the last US plant making A-C pipe closed in 1992). The sole use of asbestos fiber imported into the US in recent years was for diaphragms in plants making chlorine.  Of the 8 remaining plants using asbestos, 5 will convert to non-asbestos diaphragms and 3 will convert to membrane cell technology.  EPA will allow 5 years for the conversion to non-asbestos diaphragms and allow up to 12 years for the last plant to be converted to membrane cells.  The rule also phases out asbestos gaskets for most uses in 2 years and brake parts in 6 months. The rule, which has some excessive delays for its application, could be delayed further by legal challenges." 

 

Responding to the announcement by US EPA, Prof. Frank said, "The new ban- really only a partial one in many ways- is a modest step forward but much still need doing here in the US. India, too, is proving a difficult place to move forward on protecting people from asbestos." 

 

The victims of asbestos-related diseases are a community of the same fate. It is estimated that 50, 000 Indians are dying of incurable asbestos-related diseases every year. In the US, more than one million US citizens have died from preventable asbestos-caused diseases during 1991-2021.The ruling parties and governments of USA and India must put public health before naked lust for profit, without being constrained by questionable electoral finance from asbestos based companies.    

     

The announcement by USEPA was made on March 18, 2024.TWA and BANI hope that India will impose a total ban on trade, manufacture and use of deadly mineral fibers of White Chrysotile Asbestos. BANI has been working for making India free from asbestos and asbestos related disease since April 2002 with limited success. TWA and BANI urge USEPA to desist from allowing long phase-out periods for some specific asbestos users and from permitting five other types of asbestos mineral fibers, drawing lessons from some 70 countries which have banned asbestos of all kinds.

 

Notably, Dr. S. Jaishankar, Union Minister of External Affairs informed parliament on February 9, 2023 that "There were asbestos concerns "with regard to  Indian property in Washington D.C. It posed a challenge in preparing it for use as an Indian Cultural Centre.”  It seems someone took India for a ride by selling a hazardous asbestos laden building in Washington D.C. An inquiry must be ordered by the government to ascertain who compelled India to buy asbestos laden property in Washington D.C. 

 

There is a compelling need for both the USA and India to enact a comprehensive ban on trade, manufacture and use of all six kinds of asbestos to pave the way for a future free from the tragedy of asbestos-related diseases.

Closure of Asbestos factory in Bihiya, Bhojpur will be a genuine tribute to the memory of Prof. Ishwari Prasad

The legacy of Ishwari Prasad, a noted supporter of the asbestos-free Bihar movement will remain alive

Prof. Ishwari Prasad, a noted economist from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) used to argue against the externalization of health costs due to hazardous industries like the asbestos industry. He said, “We cannot wait for studies and counting of dead bodies for government to act. The global evidence is incontrovertible” at the Conference on Environmental and Occupational Health in the presence of the Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council on December 24, 2012. He signed the Patna Declaration seeking environmental, and occupational health infrastructure and the prohibition on all forms of asbestos-based products amidst anti-asbestos protests by villagers. He was addressing the Collegium Ramazzini Round Table on Environmental and Occupational Diseases as part of the conference.

 

Prof. Ishwari Prasad left his mortal frame on December 28, 2023, at the age of 89 years in Patna. He is survived by Usha Prasad, his daughter and sons.

In an article in Prabhat Khabar, Prof. Ishwari Prasad had warned the government of Singur like unrest in Bihar if the proposed six asbestos plants at Goraul, Vaishali, Giddha, Koilwar, Bhojpur, Kumarbagh Industrial Area, West Champaran, Pandaul, Madhubani and Bihiya, Bhojpur by Utkal Asbestos Ltd, Nibhi company, Hyderabad Industries, A Infrastructure Ltd and Ramco company respectively are not stopped. His intervention, the struggle of villagers of Vaishali’s Chaksultan Rampur Rajdhari near Panapur in Kanhauli Dhanraj Panchayat in Goraul block, and the street protest by Patna Asbestos Virodhi Nagrik Manch, Left and socialist parties on January 16, 2012 against asbestos based plants had a positive impact.

(Photo: Prof Ishwari Prasad, former Professor, JNU, and Dr. Barry Castleman, former consultant, World Health Organisation, and author of Asbestos: Medical and legal aspects)

After the conference, Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar met the leaders of the ban asbestos movement led by Khet Bachao Jeevan Bachao Jan Sangharsh Committee (KBJBJC) and the leaders of left and socialist parties at his residence at 1, Anne Marg in Patna in the evening hours of February 13, 2013. Chief Minister promised that he would ‘puncture’ the construction of asbestos factories in the State. Bihar Chief Minister expressed outrage at the granting of a ‘No Objection Certificate’ by the Bihar State Pollution Control Board (BSPCB) to hazardous asbestos-based factories in fertile agricultural lands. He phoned the Chairman, of BSPCB and fixed an appointment for the villagers of Vaishali and expressed his disapproval of asbestos-based factories to him. Villagers met the Chairman, BSPCB. BSPCB’s Chairman spoke to District Magistrate, Vaishali and assured the villagers of the necessary action for canceling the approval given to the asbestos company’s plant. 

Following the Chief Minister’s intervention, Bihar’s State Investment Promotion Board (SIPB) and the State Cabinet disapproved all the asbestos-based industrial projects and rescinded these approvals except the one at Bihiya, Bhojpur where two units of Tamil Nadu-based Ramco company’s plant was already constructed.

The villagers have been protesting against these units which have been found by BSPCB to be operating in violation of specific environmental laws. It has been violating the Supreme Court’s verdict dated 27 January 1995 which paved the way for the adoption of occupational health surveillance under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Guidance Manual-Asbestos Based Industries by the Union government. Besides these laws and the Court’s order, the company is in violation of the three Schedules under the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (OSHWC) Code 2020 which refer to hazardous asbestos mineral fiber and asbestosis, an incurable disease. 

BSPCB has a consistent position against these two units of Ramco company’s hazardous asbestos plants under which Vivek Kumar Singh, as Chairman, BSPCB canceled the Non-Objection Certificates (NOCs) given to the hazardous enterprise of Ramco company under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Rules 3 (1), Schedule 1 of Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules under Environment (Protection) Act 1986. These Rules deal with hazardous wastes generated during the production of asbestos or asbestos-containing materials including asbestos-containing residues, discarded asbestos, and dust/particulates from exhaust gas treatment.  

 

Following the cancellation of NOCs, the company approached the Appellate Authority to appeal against the cancellation. At the time of their appeal, the Appellate Authority happened to be Vivek Kumar Singh himself who as Chairman, of Bihar State Pollution Control Board (BSPCB) had canceled their NOCs. The company used this apparent violation of the principle of natural justice as a ground to seek relief from the Patna High Court. It got the relief. Instead of confirming its order asking the State government to rectify the error by appointing a person as Appellate Authority in compliance with the principle of natural justice and unmindful of the fact that the fact of violation of environmental laws has not been disputed, the High Court allowed the company to operate its plant. But now that the Appellate Authority has been changed as per the Court's directions the error has been rectified and now the High Court has asked the Chairman, BSPCB to act after examining the complaint against it, the matter is before you. 

 

BSPCB's legal action could not become effective because of the order of a single judge bench of Patna High Court on the limited ground of violation of natural justice. The order of Justice Jyoti Sharan dated 30 March 2017 had directed the Chief Secretary, State of Bihar to rectify the error of the Chairman of the BSPCB and the Appellate Authority being the same person.

(Source: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/64804529/

 

It is a fact that the Court’s order did not dispute the finding of the Board about the violation of environmental laws. It did not dispute that asbestos and asbestos-based industries are heavily polluting and have been categorized as R24 in the Red Category. (Source: http://bspcb.bih.nic.in/Categorization_10.10.18_new.pdf) 

 

Subsequently, a Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justices Ajay Kumar Tripathi and Niku Agrawal passed another order modifying the previous order in the Bihar State Pollution Control Board v. Ramco Industries Ltd. on 30 April 2018 (Letters Patent Appeal No.873 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 421 of 2017. The order authored by Justice Tripathi reads: "Since Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh no longer happens to be the Chairman of the Bihar State Pollution Control Board, therefore, one of the reasons provided by the learned Single Judge for interfering with the order no longer holds good. It is left open to the new Chairman of Bihar State Pollution Control Board to pass a fresh order by law after hearing the parties." Source: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/85967218/ 

 

The legal action taken by the BSPCB against the asbestos-based factories of Ramco Industries Limited is praiseworthy. As a follow-up of BSPCB’s previous action in this regard, there is a need to address the public health crisis as a consequence of the ongoing unscientific and illegal disposal of hazardous and carcinogenic asbestos waste. The violation of all the general and specific conditions laid down in the NOC given by the BSPCB and the environmental clearance given by the Experts Appraisal Committee of the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change by the company's factories in question is crying for attention. 

 The following news broadcasts have captured the situation in Bihiya, Bhojpur-

1.  Ramco Company: सरकार के साथ साथ दे रही जनता को धोखा, 2. रामको कंपनी ने बिहिया को बनाया डस्टबिन, 3.Asbestos के Sale व Use को Bihar में अब रोक दीजिए Nitish जी, नहीं तो बच्चे ऐसे ही सो जाते रहेंगे, and 

4. Buying Asbestos is buying Cancer: Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council 

The following methods in disposing of asbestos waste (dust and fibers) by the company in question have been noticed at the site of both the units of Ramco company:

1. Using excavators the broken sheets are crushed and buried deep inside factory premises. The broken pieces pose a grave threat to the groundwater shared by fertile agricultural land and villagers who use it for drinking purposes. 

2. Since there is no space to bury the asbestos waste broken asbestos products are sold to fictitious or known dealers on ex- factory basis to discard the company's responsibility for disposal. Normally, the destination of such disposal will be in remote locations and buried on fertile lands or used for landfilling and covered by sand permanently. It seems to be a corporate crime but logical from the company's perspective as no one will pay 4 times the cost for transportation for a zero-value material. 

3. The broken ast-based sheets are cut inside the factory into unmarketable sizes like 1-meter length and gifted as CSR activities. The cutting process emits a lot of asbestos dust and fibers harmful to the workers and villagers. 

4. Broken asbestos sheets and wastes during transit handling or from the customer end are brought to the depot at various locations to harden topsoil or landfilling which again poses a threat to groundwater. Cutting broken bigger asbestos sheets also pose a danger as asbestos fibers become airborne. 

5. Wherever cement is handled in bags inside the factory it creates occupational hazards for workers due to asbestos dust particles. This is a threat to villagers as well because the air quality in the area gets polluted. 

6. Ramco Industries Limited has been donating asbestos based roofs to the nearby Mahatin Mai temple and to the parking space of the District Magistrate's office as an exercise in ethical positioning of its brand and as a public relations exercise. The villagers, temple devotees, and the district administration have been taken for a ride. They have acted in complete ignorance of the Board's action against Ramco's factories.

The stance of Chief Minister Nitish Kumar who has declared in the State Assembly that the Bihar Government will not allow construction of carcinogenic asbestos factories in the state on 1st July 2019 is worthy of appreciation.  This announcement and the verdict by the Italian Court vindicates the anti-asbestos struggle by villagers of Bhojpur. 
BSPCB's action about carcinogenic white chrysotile asbestos mineral fiber has been consistent with what is published on the National Health Portal (NHP), Centre for Health Informatics (CHI), National Institute of Health and Family Welfare (NIHFW), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), Government of India. The National Health Portal states that “All forms of asbestos (chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite, tremolite, actinolite, and anthophyllite) are in use because of their extraordinary tensile strength, poor heat conduction, and relative resistance to chemical attack. Chemically, asbestos minerals are silicate compounds, meaning they contain atoms of silicon and oxygen in their molecular structure. All forms of asbestos are carcinogenic to humans. Asbestos exposure (including chrysotile) causes cancer of the lung, larynx, and ovaries, and also mesothelioma (a cancer of the pleural and peritoneal linings).” Asbestos exposure is also responsible for other diseases such as asbestosis (fibrosis of the lungs), and plaques, thickening, and effusion in the pleura.”  It observes that “Asbestos exposure occurs through inhalation of fibers in the air in the working environment, ambient air in the vicinity of point sources such as factories handling asbestos, or indoor air in housing and buildings containing friable asbestos materials.”

Against such a backdrop, it is quite distressing that Ramco company's factories in Bihiya managed to get relief from Patna High Court on a procedural ground of violation of natural justice. Now that the procedural error has been rectified, the operation of the two units of Ramco Asbestos Company must be stopped. Its operation is a case of environmental health lawlessness. It has violated every specific and general condition that has been stipulated in the environmental clearance and the No Objection Certificate.

It is necessary to initiate preventive action in the face of tycoons, officials, and ministers facing criminal charges and imprisonment for their act of knowingly subjecting unsuspecting people to killer fibers of asbestos in Europe. The future will be no different for the culprits in India. It is quite clear from the Court’s order that the Chairman, BSPCB has to reissue the “fresh order by the law after hearing the parties”  and reiterate its earlier order against both the asbestos-based units in Bihiya, Bihar. 

(Photo: Prof. Ishwari Prasad with Awadhesh Narayan Singh, Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council, Dr. Barry Castleman, Justice Rekha Kumari, and Advocate Dr Gopal Krishna addressing conference environmental and occupational health in Patna)  

The closure of both units will be a genuine tribute to the memory of Prof. Ishwari Prasad who wished Bihar to be a asbestos-free and asbestos-related disease-free state, worthy of emulation by other states.  

"Asbestos concerns " with Indian property in Washington D.C: Dr. S. Jaishankar

Indian foreign minister, Dr. S. Jaishankar informed parliament on February 9, 2023 that "There were asbestos concerns "with regard to  Indian property in Washington D.C. It posed a challenge in preparing it for use as Indian Cultural Centre.  He was replying to a question from Mohammed Nadimul Haque.

Asbestos is a class of magnesium-silicate minerals which are light-weight, chemically inert and heat-resistant. They do not conduct electric currents and possess high flexibility, strength, durability and acoustic properties. At the Headquarters complex, asbestos-containing materials were extensively used, because the buildings were constructed in the early 1950s, when the use of asbestos was widespread. The harmful effects of exposure to asbestos fibres on the respiratory system has been clearly established since the early 1970s. The fibres are so thin that they hang in the air a long time before settling. 

 

It may be recalled that UN Secretary-General's report had provided an assessment of asbestos-containing materials at UN Headquarters. It had reviewed measures to ensure that such materials did not cause harm to persons working or visiting in the United Nations (document A/54/779). The report covered the Headquarters complex, the UNDC-I and UNDC-II buildings, the former United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) building and leased spaces in other buildings in New York.

Close attention has been paid to the asbestos situation in the UN Headquarters buildings and steps have been taken to make them abestos-free. UN's Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) has recommended that information be provided on asbestos at other United Nations duty stations.

Measures for managing asbestos include continued encapsulation of the existing asbestos, whereby it is not considered a health risk; semi-annual testing of air supply and return sources for asbestos fibres; and the removal of asbestos- containing materials only where the maintenance, alterations, improvement, construction or other activity necessitates its removal, according to the report.

A UN release stated that the UN complies with all standards, codes and regulations issued by the United States Government, New York State and City with regard to inspection, engineering controls, abatement and management of disposal of asbestos-containing materials. Unfortunately, this not enough because despite WHO's recommendation, US is yet to ban all kinds of asbestos unlike 70 countries which have prohibited it. 

The Committee also had before it a report of the ACABQ on the asbestos situation at Headquarters (document A/54/7/Add.12) recommending that the General Assembly take note of the Secretary-General's report and that information be provided on buildings at Geneva, Vienna, Nairobi and the regional commissions.

The ACABQ was informed that all handling of asbestos followed standard procedures and unacceptable levels had not entered the air stream, the report states. The ACABQ was also informed that since measures to manage asbestos started at Headquarters, 30 per cent of the asbestos has been removed from the buildings. It was told that 70 per cent of the asbestos at the UNITAR building had been removed and the remaining 30 per cent remain encapsulated, mainly on the ground floor.

The ACABQ learned that roughly 15 complaints concerning asbestos are received every year. On receiving a complaint from staff, a licensed independent contractor was sent to test the area for the presence of asbestos fibres and the results were made available through the Medical Services Division.

In a  related development, Iraq has informed India in writing that it has banned asbestos like some 70 countries. The countries which have banned it are: 1) Algeria, 2) Czech Republic, 3) Iran, 4) Malta, 5) Serbia, 6) Argentina, 7) Denmark, 8) Iraq, 9) Mauritius, 10) Seychelles, 11) Australia, 12) Djibouti, 13) Ireland, 14) Monaco, 15) Slovakia, 16) Austria, 17) Egypt, 18) Israel, 19) Mozambique, 20) Slovenia, 21) Bahrain, 22) Estonia, 23) Italy,  24) Netherlands, 25) South Africa, 26) Belgium, 27) Finland, 28) Japan, 29) New Caledonia, 30) Spain, 31) Brazil 32) France, 33) Jordan, 34) New Zealand, 35) Sweden, 36) Brunei, 37) Gabon, 38) South Korea, 39)  Norway, 40) Switzerland, 41) Bulgaria, 42) Germany, 43) Kuwait, 44) Oman, 45) Taiwan, 46) Canada, 47) Gibraltar, 48) Latvia, 49) Poland, 50) Turkey, 51) Chile, 52) Greece, 53) Liechtenstein, 54) Portugal, 55) United Kingdom, 56) Colombia, 57) Honduras, 58) Lithuania, 59) Qatar, 60) Uruguay, 61) Croatia, 62) Hungary, 63) Luxembourg, 64) Romania, 65) Ukraine, 66) Cyprus, 67) Iceland, 68) Macedonia and 69) Saudi Arabia which have banned asbestos of all kinds because safe and controlled use of asbestos is not possible.  

 

Hasn't Indian properties been made asbestos free in these 70 countries which have banned all kinds of carcinogenic asbestos mineral fibers? 

 

India has banned mining of all kinds of asbestos and trade in asbestos waste (dust and fibers) but it is yet to ban its trade, manufacture and use.