Ban Asbestos Network of India
(BANI) ToxicsWatch
Alliance (TWA)
To
Chief Secretary
Government of Gujarat
Gandhinagar
Subject: Like Japan, make Gujarat asbestos free to
save residents, consumers, workers and children from exposure to carcinogenic
asbestos fibers
Sir,
With reference to the above mentioned subject and
the recent visit of Shri Shinzo Abe and his wife Smt Akie Abe to Gujarat
accompanied by our Hon’ble Prime Minister Shri PM Narendra Modi, we wish to
bring the following facts to your attention for immediate remedial action
amidst unprecedented but unacknowledged environmental and occupational health
crisis in Gujarat:
1.
In 2002 a total ban on asbestos was announced in Japan,
following many years of failed attempt to undertake safe and controlled use. In
2004, the Government of Japan began phasing out the use of asbestos with the
introduction of a partial ban; a total ban was promised by 2008. Japan’s Ministry
of Health, Labour and Welfare has announced
total prohibition on production,
import, transfer, provision
or use of
asbestos or any
material containing more than 0.1% asbestos by weight. Reference:
https://www.jisha.or.jp/english/pdf/Total_Ban_on_Asbestos_in_Japan-01.pdf
2.
As per Constitution of India, health is a state subject;
therefore similar initiative is required by States like Gujarat. Like Japanese
Government, Gujarat and other states of India too should announce that “We
requests that enterprises importing machinery or other products into India
confirm that the packing, gaskets, etc. of such products contain no asbestos,
based on supporting documents or analytical results before importing such
products.
3.
In a reply Joint Secretary, Labour and Employment
Department, Government of Gujarat has submitted the Action Taken Report
furnished by the Director Industrial Safety & Health, Gujarat State. In
this reply it is stated that “Asbestosis is declared as notifiable occupational
diseases in Third Schedule under section 89 and 90 of the Factories Act. The
workers working in the registered factories are eligible for compensation
either under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 or under the Employees
State Insurance Act.”
4.
This reply reveals that “22 workers of Gujarat
Composite Ltd, Kaligam, Ahmedabad, who were suspected victims of asbestosis
were sent for medical check-up to National Institute of Occupational Health.
Out of them, following two workers were confirmed for Asbestosis by N.I.O.H.:
(1) Shri Hazarilal Manraj and (2) Shri Sahejram B Yadav.” The relevant attached document shows asbestos
victims certified by NIOH, Ahmedabad are not being given compensation as per
Hon’ble Court's order.
5.
The reply discloses that “Letters dated 24/12/2002,
16/10/2006 and 19/1/2007 were issued to the Gujarat Composite Ltd. to pay
compensation of Rs 1 lac to the above two victims as per the direction of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. Gujarat Composite Ltd. has denied to pay compensation to the
above workers as the company has challenged the report of N.I.O.H. This fact is
mentioned in the affidavit made before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the
Gujarat Composite Ltd. has not paid the compensation to the victims as per the
directions given in the Writ Petition (C) No. 206/1986. Thus, the State
Government has taken all the steps required for the protection of workers from
Asbestosis in factories of Gujarat State.” 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 (to agencies like Apurva Vinimay and Infrastructure Division).
6.
This reply does not disclose that there is a case of 62
workers pending in the Gujarat Human Rights Commission wherein 23 workers have
been medically examined at the direction of the State Human Rights Commission
but their report has not been shared.
7.
This reply submits that Government of Gujarat has
adopted the ILO Convention on Asbestos (Convention 162) of 1986. It has ignored
the ILO Resolution of June 14, 2006, Its clause 2 reads: The ILO Asbestos
Convention, 1986 (No. 162), provides for the measures to be taken for the
prevention and control of, and protection of workers against, health hazards
due to occupational exposure to asbestos. Key provisions of Convention No. 162
concern: – replacement of asbestos or of certain types of asbestos or products
containing asbestos with other materials or products evaluated as less harmful,
– total or partial prohibition of the use of asbestos or of certain types of
asbestos or products containing asbestos in certain work processes, – measures
to prevent or control the release of asbestos dust into the air and to ensure
that the exposure limits or other exposure criteria are complied with and also
to reduce exposure to as low a level as is reasonably practicable. Its
clause 4 in paragraph 3 reads: “The Resolution also underlined that the ILO
Convention on Safety in the Use of Asbestos, No. 162, should not be used to
provide a justification for, or endorsement of, the continued use of asbestos.”
8.
This Resolution concerning asbestos was adopted by the
International Labour Conference at its 95th Session in 2006 calls for “the
elimination of the future use of asbestos and the identification and proper
management of asbestos currently in place as the most effective means to
protect workers from asbestos exposure and to prevent future asbestos-related
diseases and deaths”.
9.
In his reply Joint Secretary, Labour and Employment
Department, Government of Gujarat has enclosed the notification of Union
Ministry of Labour and Employment constituting an Advisory Committee in
pursuance of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
10. There
are four terms of reference (TOR) of this Advisory Committee. Two of these TORs
deal with ‘ILO guidelines’ and ‘fresh resolution passed by ILO”. The reply does
not recognize that the ‘fresh resolution passed by ILO’ refers to the above
mentioned June 2006 resolution.
11. Director
Industrial Safety & Health, Gujarat State has filed the ‘Compliance Report
of Para 16 of Directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 260 of 2004. This document submits that “Use of Crocidolite and product
containing this fiber is prohibited in the State as per the guide line of the
ILO convention 162 for Asbestos. This report does not reveal how Hon’ble
Court’s direction regarding ‘fresh resolution passed by ILO” seeking elimination
of future use of asbestos is being complied with.
12. In
a separate evasive reply, Senior Environment Engineer, Gujarat Pollution
Control Board has failed to reveal the status of asbestos related diseases in
the asbestos based factories in the State and the procurement of asbestos based
products by the State Government and the residents of the State. It does
concede that “Asbestos” is identified as having hazardous properties with
regard to health effects but its reply is highly unsatisfactory given the fact
that Gujarat is emerging as the asbestos disease capital of India. In fact the
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 206 of 1986 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave
the directions with regard to adverse impact of asbestos industry in 1995 was
filed due to cases of asbestos victims in Gujarat.
13. Even
this somewhat lackadaisical letter which confines itself to the Asbestos
containing material management at Bhavnagar’s Alang Ship Breaking Yard
generated during shipbreaking activity, it has not disclosed the findings of
the study by National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH), Ahmedabad
undertaken in compliance of the instructions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
constituted Technical Experts Committee. The same was filed in the Hon’ble
Court revealing how 16 % of the workers on the Alang beach involved in ship
breaking are exposed to asbestos fibers.
14. It
is noteworthy that the UN Special Rapporteur who visited Alang, Gujarat took
note of the adverse effects of the movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous
products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights. He noted, “most workers,
but reportedly also a number of yard owners, are not aware of the serious
life-threatening work-related diseases which may result from long-term exposure
to toxic and hazardous substances and materials present on end-of-life ships.
In particular, it appears that the majority of the workforce and the local
population do not know the adverse consequences of prolonged exposure to
asbestos dusts and fibres and are not familiar with the precautions that need
to be taken to handle asbestos-containing materials.” Almost all the workers
are migrant workers from UP, Bihar, Jharkahnd and Odisha. There is no
documentation of the deaths and diseases due to exposures to asbestos fibers of
these workers but lack of documentation does not mean absence of occupational
health crisis in Alang.
15. It
has come to light from the Office Memorandum dated May 2011 that Ministry of
Environment & Forests (MoEF)’s Standing Monitoring Committee (SMC) on
Shipbreaking has suggested that monitoring of asbestos in ambient air at
shipbreaking yards on Alang beach “shall be commissioned by GMB for carrying
out the same by a reputed institute like NIOH, as a onetime study.” The facts
is Asbestos cannot be handled safely or in a controlled manner. Therefore,
International Labour Organisation’s resolution of June 2006 and World Health
Organisation’s resolution of 2005 seek elimination of future use of asbestos.
Indian workers in general and migrant workers of Alang should not be made to
handle asbestos under any situation.
16. The
above mentioned reply does not reveal the health status of the workers at the
asbestos cement sheet plant in Kachchh in Gujarat operated by Ramco Industries.
It is totally silent about the health impact of asbestos units like Charminar
Asbestos, Royal Asbestos, Supreme Asbestos Trading Company, Eagle
Asbestos Pvt Ltd, Shree Khodiyar Asbestos Company, Shiv Shakti Enterprises,
Royal Asbestos and several others. The reply of Gujarat Government has failed
to report whether Gujarat State has the environmental and occupational health
infrastructure in place to diagnose asbestos related diseases.
In the context of these
facts we submit that State Government should ensure decontamination of asbestos
from the old schools and ensure that no asbestos roofs or any asbestos material
is used in any school or public or private building in Gujarat.
We submit that Gujarat
Government should take steps to ensure that only non-asbestos building material
and water supply pipes etc are procured. A register of asbestos laden buildings
and victims of asbestos related diseases should be created. A compensation fund
for the victims of primary and secondary exposure must be established.
We submit that
substitutes for asbestos based products are not limited to products that simply
replace asbestos with another material (e.g., PVA and cellulose in fiber-cement
roofing sheet). There are also a number
of wholly different products that can replace the asbestos products. It is
noteworthy that asbestos of all kinds including white chrysotile asbestos is
banned in some 60 countries.
While asbestos mining
is technically banned in our country, in a shocking case of inconsistency India
continues to import asbestos from asbestos producing countries like Russia,
Brazil Kazakhstan and China. Trade in asbestos waste (dust and fiber) is also
banned. Now that Brazil’s Federal
Supreme Court has declared use of asbestos as unconstitutional, it is most
likely that after Canada which used to be a supplier of asbestos to India even
Brazil too will stop being supplier to India.
We submit that by
letter dated 9th July, 1986 from Union
Ministry of Steel, Mines & Coal, Government of India with reference no.
7/23/84-AM-III/AM-VI there is a stay on grant of new mining lease for asbestos
mineral and renewal of the leases. Reiterating the same in June 1993, central
government stopped the renewal of existing mining leases of asbestos. The
mining activity was banned by Union Ministry of Mines. As a result at present no permission is being
given for new mining lease of asbestos mineral and no lease is being renewed.
At present no lease of asbestos mineral is approved/or in force in the country.
It is strange that
while mining of asbestos is banned in the country due to adverse health impact,
the same is being imported from Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Zimbabwe. It
high time governments stopped practicing such untenable policies displaying
manifest double standards.
Given the fact that
these days what Gujarat thinks today, rest of India thinks tomorrow, it is
hoped that rest India will follow the example.
In view of the above
mentioned facts, we demand that all the asbestos based companies should be
asked to switch non-asbestos materials in the light of the fact that some 60
countries have banned all kinds of asbestos including white chrysotile asbestos
mineral fibers that causes incurable lung cancer according to World Health
Organisation (WHO). This will go a long way in combating fatal diseases caused
corporate crimes and in making Gujarat the first state in the country to adopt
zero-tolerance policy towards these killer mineral fibers.
We will have happy to
share required documents in this regard.
Thanking you in
anticipation
Warm
Regards
Dr Gopal Krishna
Dr Gopal Krishna
Ban
Asbestos Network of India (BANI)
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660
E-mail-1715krishna@gmail.com
Web: www.asbestosfreeindoa.org, www.toxicswatch.org
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660
E-mail-1715krishna@gmail.com
Web: www.asbestosfreeindoa.org, www.toxicswatch.org
Cc
Hon’ble Chief Minister, Government of
Gujarat
Hon’ble Union Minister of Health and
Family Welfare, Government of India
Hon’ble Union Minister of Commerce &
Industry, Government of India
Hon’ble Union Minister of Environment, Forest,
Climate Change, Science & Technology and Earth Sciences, Government of
India
"We may admire what he does, but we despise
what he is."-referring to humans who act mechanically on
instructions-------Wilhelm von Humboldt, 1792