Hiroshima Peace Declaration on 81st anniversary of atomic bombing [Full
Text]
-
The following is the full text of the Peace Declaration read on Aug. 6 by
Hiroshima Mayor Kazumi Matsui at a ceremony to mark 81 years since the 1945
ato...
Featured Articles
Latest Post
Showing posts with label Ban Asbestos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ban Asbestos. Show all posts
10:49 PM
Calcutta High Court’s order paves way for asbestos free West Bengal & India
Written By mediavigil on Wednesday, September 06, 2017 | 10:49 PM
Ms Mamata
Banerjee
Hon'ble Chief
Minister
Government of
West Bengal
Kolkata
Subject-Kind Attention:
Hon'ble Chief Minister West Bengal w.r.t. Hon’ble High Court’s order and need
to make West Bengal free of cancer causing white asbestos fibers
Dear Mamata Banerjee
Jee,
With reference to
Hon’ble Calcutta High Court’s order on carcinogenic-asbestos that has been used
for roofing in the Hon’ble Court’s main building, this is to draw your kind
attention towards a serious unprecedented environmental and occupational health
crisis with regard to the unnoticed epidemic of asbestos related diseases in
West Bengal in particular and in our country in general.
We submit that in Writ
Petition (Civil). No. 14729 (W) of 2016, the Division Bench of Acting Chief
Justice Nishita Mhatre and Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty has passed the verdict
observing, “The High Court main building is undergoing repairs with the
assistance of the Public Works Department (PWD) of the Government of West
Bengal and other Authorities. When the entire renovation is undertaken, it is
expected that the High Court and the PWD or, any other body entrusted with the
renovation will ensure that the asbestos-sheets, which have been used for
roofing, would be replaced by any other materials which are non-carcinogenic.”
We submit that prior to
this when you were the Hon’ble Union Railway Minister the ministry had ordered
removal of asbestos roofs from all railway buildings. It is noteworthy that the
ministry has invited offers for “Procurement of Non-Asbestos “K” Type
Composition Brake Blocks”. The offer has been issued by Director, Railway
Stores (W) or and on behalf of Hon’ble President of India.
We submit that in a
reply dated July 5, 2012 Deputy Secretary, Labour Department, Government of
West Bengal has enclosed the reply dated May 30, 2012 of R C Dutta,
Director/Chief Inspector of Factories, Government of West Bengal wherein he
status of asbestos factories its adverse impact in the State has been
submitted. In the submission it is
reported that there are 4 units in the district of Paschim Medinipur (1) UAL
Bengal (Prop. Utakal Asbestos) Vill. Tungadhowa, Guptamani-Kultikiri Road (2)
Ramco Industries Ltd., Vill. Dewanmaro Ayma, P.O. Hariatara, (3) Neelachal
Natural Resources Pvt Ltd., P.O. Manickpara and (4) Visaka Industries Vill.,
Chang sole, P.O. Saiyadpur. It reveals that “Six persons of UAL Bengal (Prop.
Utakal Asbestos) having some respiratory ailments, diagnosed as suffering from
Pulmonary Koch’s were treated and subsequently fit to join work in the non-dust
area.”
It discloses that in
the Everest Industries Ltd., 1, Taratala Road, P.O. Garden Reach in the
District of Kolkata “One person having some abnormality in X-Ray Chest,
diagnosed as fibrotic lung disease (?) were made unfit and alternate placement
facilities were provided.” It has
reported in the submission that the operation of Unit Sarbamangala Industries,
34 B, B.T. Road, Kolkata-700002 is closed for last two years. Its management
has been asked to maintain the health records of the workers. It is reported
that Mahendra Tubes Ltd. NH-31, Birpara Gairkata Road, Vill. P.O. Sakuajhara,
Dist. Jalpaiguri is in irregular operation and the workers are not fixed and
permanent. Its management has been asked to maintain the health records of the
workers. With reference to J.D Jones Ltd. Howrah, it has been reported that at
present it is having no process/work involved in asbestos handing. Its
management has been asked to maintain the health records of the workers. The
reply submits that “No case of compensation has been reported in the above
units though alternate facility has been recommended for few workers in some
units on medical ground”.
We submit that this
reply appears to constitute a blatant case of adoption of Ostrich policy the
State Government. It is refusing to admit to emergence of asbestos related
diseases in these factory units of the State.
We submit that the
government agencies like Directorate General, Factory Advice Service and Labour
Institutes (DGFASLI) took note of Prevalence of Asbestosis and Related
Disorders in a Asbestos Fiber Processing Unit in West Bengal as early as in
1996. Reference: Prevalence of Asbestosis and Related Disorders in a Asbestos
Fiber Processing Unit in West Bengal, http://www.dgfasli.nic.in/newsletter/jan_march_96.pdf
We submit that as per
Environmental Impact Assessment Manual for Asbestos Based Industries, Union
Ministry of Environment & Forests, type and quantity of solid waste
generated during the construction and operational stages is to be quantified.
In case of expansion of the unit, the solid waste generated category wise
should be furnished. For disposing asbestos waste mate rial the norms notified
under Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules,
2008 and the recommendations as per IS: 11768 – 1986 (Reaffirmed 2005) is
required to be followed. "All asbestos waste must be kept in closed
containers before its transportation to the disposal point so that no asbestos
dust is emitted into the environment during transportation. Final covering of
asbestos waste, other than high-density waste, shall be to a minimum depth of
2m and the asbestos waste including the used bag filters should be disposed at
an approved TSDF." It must be noted that there is no mention of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) for the waste
generated for the asbestos factories in the State. The reply and the submission
do not reveal the status of the procurement of asbestos based products by the
State Government and the residents of the State. It has failed to report
whether the State has the environmental and occupational health infrastructure
in place to diagnose asbestos related diseases.
We submit that it has been estimated that one person dies from mesothelioma
for every 170 tons of asbestos consumed. WHO estimates we have107,000 deaths
worldwide per year from occupational exposure to asbestos.If non occupational
exposure is added it reaches a figure of about 120,000 deaths. Average world
consumption/year 30-60 years ago was -- looks like 3/2 of what it is now (2
million metric tons/year). Give India its share of that based on its share of
global consumption. At 300,000 tons in 2013, that's about 18,000 deaths (15% of
120,000). Asbestos diseases have a very long incubation period. So if you
are exposed today to an asbestos fibre, you are likely to get the disease in
next 10-35 years. Asbestos is like a time bomb to the lungs and Indians will
suffer the most. If it is banned today that does not mean people will not
suffer. Because of past usage people will continue to suffer from these
diseases.
We submit that the
Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has recorded that “there is sufficient study
material indicating that asbestos sheets used for roofing could cause cancer”
and “various documents, issued by the World Health Organization (WHO), and
other materials obtained from the Internet, that the exposure to asbestos
including chrysotile causes lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis.” It was
contended by the petitioner that “the High Court should not continue to use
these materials for roofing, especially after legislation in different parts of
the world has been enacted on recognizing the potential health risk of asbestos
to the citizens at large. Even in India several Acts recognized the fact that asbestos
is a health-hazard.”
We submit that there is
hardly any building in West Bengal which is asbestos free. It is high time
efforts are initiated to decontaminate asbestos laden public and private
buildings.
We submit that prior to
Hon’ble High Court’s verdict, Kerala State Human Rights Commission recommended
ban on use of asbestos roofs for schools and hospitals in its order dated n
31st January, 2009.
We submit that National
Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has passed an order in Case No: 693/30/97-98
recommending that the asbestos sheets roofing should be replaced with roofing
made up of some other material that would not be harmful.
We submit that globally
asbestos industry is on trial. Countries after countries are passing verdicts
against it. They are banning future use of the cancer causing mineral fiber of
asbestos. Government of India is publicly revealing that it does not favour new
asbestos plants in the country any more. There is a compelling logic emerging
for pre-existing asbestos based plants to shift to non-asbestos based building
materials. It is not surprising that "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". A concept paper by Union Ministry of
Labour revealed this at the two-day 5th India-EU Joint Seminar on “Occupational
Safety and Health” on 19th and 20th September, 2011. (Reference:
http://www.labour.nic.in/lc/Background%20note.pdf)
We submit that the Annual
Report of NHRC 2003-2004 refers to a Report entitled “Asbestos – Health and
Environment – an in-depth Study “submitted by the Institute of Public Health
Engineers, India. The study underlines that safe and controlled use of asbestos
is not possible.
We
submit that taking lessons from the industrial disaster of Bhopal, asbestos
industry should ne made to pay heed to the way asbestos companies have gone
bankrupt in the Western countries. They should be persuaded to join hands and
create a compensation fund for victims. Dow Chemicals Company which refuses to
own the liability for Bhopal disaster caused by Union Carbide Corporation (UCC)
in India has owned the UCC’s asbestos related liabilities and announced a
compensation fund of 2.2 billion dollars for the victims. In Europe, tycoons
and ministers are facing criminal charges and imprisonment for their act of
knowing subjecting unsuspecting people to killer fibers of asbestos. The future
is no different for Indian culprits.
We
submit that while India has technically banned mining of asbestos due
deleterious impact on health, it is quite ironical that Union Government allows
import of white chrysotile asbestos from countries like Russia, Brazil,
Zimbabwe, Kazakhstan and others. Government should not allow itself to be
misled by asbestos producers like Russia in this regard now that Canada has
rightly stopped mining of white chrysotile asbestos almost like India due its
“deleterious” impact on health.
We wish to draw your attention towards the verdict
of five judges of Japan’s Supreme Court of February 17, 2015 that has upheld a
ruling that found asbestos used at a plant of Kubota Corporation caused fatal
mesothelioma in a man who lived near the plant and ordered the company to pay
¥31.9 million in damages to his relatives. The petitioners were relatives of
Kojiro Yamauchi, who died at age 80 after working for two decades about 200
meters from the Kubota plant in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture. His relatives and
those of Ayako Yasui, who died at age 85 having lived about 1 km from the
plant, sought damages from both Kubota and the government. In October, 2014 the
Supreme Court ruled that the government was responsible for failing to protect
workers from exposure at asbestos factories in Sennan, Osaka Prefecture. Reference:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/02/19/national/crime-legal/top-court-upholds-kubotas-liability-in-asbestos-death-case/#.VO3inSw8RkQ
It is noteworthy that Japan has banned asbestos of
all kinds including white chrysotile asbestos.
We also wish to draw your attention towards the fact
that our neighbor Nepal has become the first country in South Asia which going
in the direction of banning asbestos
We submit that in January 1995, while passing the
judgment for the asbestos case file by the Consumer Education & Research
Centre (CERC) (case details: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1657323/),
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India directed all asbestos factories to keep the
health records of their workers for 40 years and/or 15 years after their
retirement.
We submit that the second significant direction was
the GoI and the state governments have to mend their rules and regulation as
per the ILO resolution (International Labour Organisation). The ILO says
eliminate asbestos of all kinds for elimination of asbestos related-diseases.
Controlled use is not possible. It has not been possible for all the countries
which have banned it and this is impossible in India too.
We submit that Navy officials have rightly objected
to presence of asbestos in aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov which was inducted
into the Indian Navy as INS Vikramaditya after asbestos decontamination.
We submit that Union of India’s Budget 2011-12 had
made reference to asbestos related diseases by including it under the Rashtriya
Swasthya Bima Yojana to cover ‘unorganized sector workers in hazardous mining
and associated industries like asbestos etc”. During Emergency, the ruling
party and its acolytes had proposed to put opposition leaders in jails which
had asbestos roofs.
We submit that there are fibre substitutes that have
been evaluated by WHO are listed in the Summary Consensus Report of WHO
Workshop on Mechanisms of Fibre Carcinogenesis and Assessment of Chrysotile
Asbestos Substitutes.
We submit that sooner or later, the asbestos
industry will go bankrupt because they will have to pay huge amount of money in
compensation. For every injury in the law there is a remedy. The present and
the future generation will make sure they get remedy.
We submit that the rate of consumption of growth
which they are enjoying today does not mean it will continue. In western
countries, the rate picked at one time and today it is zero. This is the peak
of Asbestos industry in India and now, the downfall will start.
We submit that the industry must be persuaded to
phase out in two phases. In the first phase the goal is to eliminate use of
chrysotile asbestos and the number of exposed workers and consumers in the
country. In the second phase, the goal is to create incentives for the use of
safer materials, ensure, create a registry of asbestos laden buildings and
victims of asbestos-related diseases and ensure decontamination of the
former and compensation for the latter. There is an immediate need to conduct
an audit of the current status of the victims of asbestos related diseases from
the government hospital records in the country and make it mandatory for
medical colleges to provide training for doctors so that they can diagnose
diseases caused by occupational, non-occupational and environmental exposures
to killer fibers and substances.
We
submit that Union Environment Ministry’s Vision Statement reads: “Alternatives
to asbestos may be used to the extent possible and use of asbestos may be
phased out”.
We
submit that meanwhile, while an Advisory Committee of Union Ministry of Labour
has been set up to implement Hon’ble Supreme Court order issued 15 years ago on
January 27, 1995 and repeated on January 23, 2012. Although more than 1 year
and four months have passed but the Advisory Committee headed by Joint
Secretary, Union Ministry of Labour is yet to submit its report to incorporate
specific directions of the Court with regard to fresh ILO’s Resolution of June
14, 2006 introducing a ban on all mining, manufacture, recycling and use of all
forms of asbestos.
We
submit that even early industry-funded studies showed a causal relationship
between asbestos exposure and cancer. Had this been made known to the public it
could have prevented countless deaths but the asbestos industry made the
conscious decision to protect their profits instead and choose to keep this
information hidden from the public. India’s asbestos industry is following the
same path. As a consequence,
although millions of Indian lives are being lost and millions are being exposed
to the killer fibers of white chrysotile asbestos, no government agency or
company is being held liable due to political patronage.
While
on a visit to New Delhi, Dr Alec Farquhar, as the 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 heart, 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.
We submit that the year 2011 is remembered in Bihar
for a successful villagers’ struggle against a asbestos plant proposed by
Kolkata based company Balmukund Cement & Roofing Ltd in Chainpur-Bishunpur,
Marwan Block, Muzaffarpur district, Bihar that led to the winding up of the
plant as per a communication from the Chairman, Bihar State Human Rights
Commission.
We submit that following bitter resistance against the
proposal of West Bengal based Utkal Asbestos Limited (UAL) at Chaksultan
Ramppur Rajdhari near Panapur in Kanhauli Dhanraj Panchayat of in Goraul block in Vaishali, Bihar,
Bihar State Pollution Control Board (BSPCB) cancelled the No Objection
Certificate given to the UAL company. It had approval for 2.5 lakh ton per
annum capacity. The peoples struggle led to stoppage of proposed asbestos based
plant of 1.25 lak tons per annum (TPA) capacity in Pandaul, Sagarpur, Hati
tehsil in Madhubani, Bihar. The proposal of 2.5 lakh TPA capacity plant by
Hyderabad Industries Ltd in Kumar Bagh, Bettiah, West Champaran, Bihar has also
been stopped. The company has constructed a boundary wall amidst rich
agricultural field but faces court cases from villagers.
It is sad that a killer
fiber like asbestos which is banned in some 60 countries is being used in West
Bengal to manufacture asbestos cement sheets disregarding the fatal health
impact for present and future generations. Such plants and products should be
stopped to save residents from incurable lung cancer like diseases.
We submit that asbestos
death toll has surpassed traffic fatalities in Australia. In US, every year 10,
000 people are dying because of asbestos related disease. There is an epidemic
of asbestos diseases in Europe. In India, a silent Bhopal disaster is happening
every year. The rate of consumption of asbestos in India is rising at an
alarming rate due to budgetary support. Nearly all of India's asbestos is mixed
with cement to form roofing sheets. Bolstered by asbestos import tariffs that
have been reduced from 78% in the mid-1990s to 15% by 2004, the country's
asbestos-cement industry is increasing by roughly 10% every year.
We submit that some
typical asbestos-based materials include sound insulation infill, thermal
insulation lagging, tape, rope, felts, blankets, mattresses, asbestos boards,
gaskets and washers, drive belts/ conveyor belts, roofing sheets and slates,
drain and flue pipes, rainwater goods, fascia boards, bath panels, ceiling
tiles, toilet seats, cisterns, bitumen damp proof course, lining to walls, lab
bench tops, extraction hoods and fume cupboards, brakes and clutches, cooling
tower elements and others.
We submit that the
health consequences are already apparent, but the scale of the problem is not
clear because there is no documentation of disease caused by environmental and
occupational factors. “The Government of India has a very poor, almost
non-existent, system to record death and disease”, explains Arthur Frank from
Drexel University, Philadelphia , PA , USA who is a regular visitor to India.
Besides, cancer is not a notifiable disease. Prof. Frank cited a hospital in
Mumbai which sees a dozen cases of mesothelioma every year. Studies have shown
high rates of asbestosis among workers in the industry, including in those
whose exposure to the material has spanned less than 5 years. There has been no
real assessment of [asbestos-related disease] to the point that you can get
accurate figures.
We submit that the
verdict even by the World Trade Organization (WTO)’s Appellate Body (AB)
validated the rights of Member States to prohibit the import and use of goods
which contain carcinogenic substances such as chrysotile asbestos (white
asbestos) is noteworthy. On March 12, 2001 the WTO's Appellate Body (AB) issued
its ruling in the case of Canada vs. the European Communities Measures
Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products. It noted that safe and
controlled use of chrysotile asbestos is impossible.
We submit that India is
the largest importer of asbestos, according to the UN Commodity Trade
Statistics Database. Most of it goes into making corrugated roofing sheets as
building material.
In our country, it has
been estimated by a Canadian jurist that approximately 50, 000 people die every
year due to asbestos related cancer. But so far Government of India and state
governments has failed to take a pro-people’s health position and a scientific
stand on the import of chrysotile asbestos whose mining is technically banned
in India. It is a matter of fact that health is a state subject.
In such a context, we appeal
to you to take note of:
·
Hon’ble Calcutta High Court’s order;
·
Resolutions of WHO and ILO (2005 and
2006 seeking elimination of future use of asbestos including chrysotile
asbestos worldwide;
·
Need to announce the compensation
package for present and future victims of asbestos diseases as it has done in
the case of Silicosis and make the asbestos companies criminally liable for
knowingly exposing citizens and consumers of asbestos products;
·
The fact that every international health
agency of repute including the World Health Organization, the International
Labor Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, and the American Cancer Society agree there is no safe level of
asbestos exposure. Most recently, the International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC) reconfirmed that all commercial asbestos fibers - including
chrysotile, the most commercially used form of asbestos - cause lung cancer and
mesothelioma. In addition, IARC newly confirmed that there is sufficient
evidence that asbestos causes ovarian cancer and reconfirmed asbestos causes
laryngeal cancer;
·
The World Health Organisation estimates
that asbestos already claims 107,000 lives a year. Even that conservative
estimate means every five minutes around the clock a person dies of asbestos
related disease. The ongoing use of the asbestos fibre kills at least 300
people every day;
·
World Bank's Asbestos Good Practice
Guidelines. These Guidelines, as well as its earlier Environmental, Health
& Safety General Guidelines, require that the use of asbestos must be
avoided in new construction in projects funded by the World Bank around the
world. The Guidelines also provide information on available safer alternatives
to asbestos;
·
Human biology is same everywhere if the
asbestos is deemed hazardous in the developed countries; it must be deemed so
in West Bengal too;
In view of the
incontrovertible adverse health effects asbestos based plants and products
should be phased out to protect the lives of present and future generations.
We take this
opportunity to draw your immediate attention towards the fact that asbestos
related diseases are also incurable despite this environmental clearances are
still being given by the central environment ministry but health being a state
subject, your government can act to safeguard the life of present and future
generations by stopping it.
All the groups working
on human rights, labour rights, health rights and environmental justice will
appreciate if you can intervene urgently in the matter of chrysotile asbestos
as Kerala government acted in the case of Endosufan. Health is a state subject.
In such a backdrop, it
is germane to ask Government of West Bengal to stop manufacturing, procurement
and use of all forms of asbestos including white asbestos.
In view of the above,
it is your solemn duty to protect the residents of West Bengal from the
exposure of fibers of chrysotile asbestos.
We will be happy to
share reference documents and more information in this regard.
Thanking you in
anticipation
Yours
Faithfully
Dr
Gopal Krishna
Editor,
ToxicsWatch
Email:
1715krishna@gmail.com
Labels:
ASBESTOS FREE INDIA,
Ban Asbestos,
Bengal
1:46 AM
Documents
on hazardous substances like White Chrysotile Asbestos
and incurable diseases must be made available in Indian languages
For Details: Gopal Krishna, Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI)-ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660, E-mail-1715krishna@gmail.com, Blog:banasbestosindia.blogspot.in Web: www.toxicswatch.org
Govt must Make India Asbestos Free by rectifying irrationality of banning mining of asbestos but continuing its trade
Written By mediavigil on Friday, May 15, 2015 | 1:46 AM
Inclusion of White Chrysotile Asbestos in the UN List of hazardous
substances postponed, to be considered again at Rotterdam Convention’s COP 8
Govt
must Make India Asbestos Free by rectifying irrationality of banning mining of asbestos
but continuing its trade
INDIA’S INVENTORY
OF HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS IMPORT INCLUDES “ASBESTOS”, LIST OF BANNED HAZARDOUS
WASTES INCLUDES WASTE ASBESTOS (DUST AND FIBERS)
Documents
on hazardous substances like White Chrysotile Asbestos
and incurable diseases must be made available in Indian languages
May 15, 2015: Following
opposition by Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Zimbabwe to the listing of White
Chrysotile Asbestos , UN Rotterdam Convention’s Seventh Conference of Parties (COP7)
agreed to postpone the issue of its inclusion for consideration by COP8. Unlike
these countries, Inventory of Hazardous Chemicals Import in India prepared by Union
Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India lists 'Asbestos' at
serial no. 26 as one of the 180 hazardous chemicals imported in India.
In a bizarre act while Government
of India has technically banned asbestos mining, it continues to allow import
and export of asbestos. "In view of the deleterious effect of asbestos
mining on health of the workers, the government has ordered the State
governments in 1986 not to grant any new mining lease for asbestos (including
Chrysotile variety) in the country" as per Government of India’s letter
with reference no. 7/23/84-AM-III/AM-VI dated 09.07.1986, Government must make
India asbestos free by rectifying the irrationality of banning mining of asbestos
but continuing its trade.
Incidentally, United
Nations Committee of Experts on the Transportation of Dangerous Goods
classifies Chrysotile Asbestos in Hazard Class and Packing Group, UN number
2590, Class 9 – Miscellaneous dangerous goods and articles. Its International
Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code is UN No: 2590: Class or division 9.
Notably, all the forms of asbestos including Actinolite
asbestos, Anthophyllite, Amosite asbestos, Crocidolite and Tremolite are already
in the PIC list except White Chrysotile Asbestos. While there is a genral
prohibition on production, importation, commercialization and use of Asbestos
fibres Amphiboles forms (Crocidolites, Amosite, Actinolite, Tremolite,
Anthophyllite) and products formulated on its basis but India gives
"Consent to import only subject to specified conditions" for
Anthophyllite. Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI) has been struggling to
ensure its inclusion of all kinds of asbestos in the Convention’s hazardous
substances list.
The inclusion of Chrysotile Asbestos in Annex III
to the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for
Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade was on the
agenda of its CoP 7. It was part of matters related to the implementation of
the Convention through consideration of chemicals for inclusion in Annex III to
the Convention through UN document no. UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.7/11. The chemicals in
the PIC list are clearly divided into two groups: industrial chemicals and
pesticides. Parties make import responses for each chemical and the responses
are published in the PIC Circular. The criteria for listing a chemical in Annex
III are contained in Annex II of the Convention.
In accordance with articles 5 and 7 of the Convention,
the Chemical Review Committee (CRC) at its second meeting recommended the
listing of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III to the Convention, approved the
text of a draft decision guidance document on chrysotile asbestos (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.7/11/Add.1,
annex) and decided to forward the recommendation and the draft decision
guidance document to the Conference of the Parties for consideration.
At its third meeting, the
Conference of the Parties deliberated on the inclusion of chrysotile asbestos
in Annex III to the Convention and, by paragraph 2 of decision RC-3/3, decided
that the requirements set out in article 5, including the criteria set out in
Annex II to the Convention as referenced in paragraph 6 of article 5 of the
Convention, the requirements set out in paragraph 1 of article 7 of the
Convention and the requirements set out in the first sentence of paragraph 2 of
Article 7 of the Convention on the process for listing in Annex III to the
Convention, had been met. The Conference of the Parties, however, did not reach
consensus on whether to list chrysotile asbestos and, by paragraph 1 of
decision RC-3/3, decided to further consider the amendment of Annex III to the
Rotterdam Convention to include chrysotile asbestos at its fourth meeting.
At its fourth and fifth meetings,
the Conference of the Parties deliberated on the inclusion of chrysotile
asbestos in Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention, but was not able to reach
consensus. At the fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties, the contact
group on candidate chemicals prepared a draft decision on follow-up action by
the Chemical Review Committee on the listing of chrysotile asbestos. As the
chemical was not listed, the Conference of the Parties agreed to annex the
draft decision to the report of the Conference on the work of its fifth meeting
for possible consideration at a future meeting (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.5/26, annex IV).
Following discussions at its
sixth meeting, the Conference of the Parties decided, given the lack of
consensus, to include further consideration of the listing of chrysotile
asbestos in Annex III to the Convention on the agenda of its seventh meeting
(UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.6/20, para.79).
At CoP 7, the proposed action
included parties to satisfy themselves that all the requirements for listing in
Annex III have been met after considering the recommendation of the CRC to make
chrysotile asbestos subject to the prior informed consent procedure and
accordingly to list the chemical in Annex III to the Convention. Following
which they were supposed to decide to amend Annex III to the Convention to list
Chrysotile Asbestos, the industrial chemical. It was also supposed to decide
that this amendment to enter into force for all parties on 15th September
2015 after approving the draft decision guidance document on chrysotile
asbestos. But the proceedings did not proceed as proposed.
On 14th May, 2015, COP7 considered the
inclusion of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III of the Convention
(UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.7/11) but owing to opposition from interested parties like the
Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Zimbabwe, the issue of listing of chrysotile
asbestos has been deferred yet again for consideration by CoP8.
The obligations of the Convention on responsible
trade fall on those exporting countries that are Parties to the Convention. The
Convention requires countries to strengthen their own chemicals management
infrastructures and enforcement mechanisms. The Convention includes final
regulatory actions (bans or severe restrictions) where the action was taken for
the purposes of human health OR environmental reasons but mere listing does not
lead to ban. The inclusion of chemicals in Annex III is not an invitation for
Parties to ban their use. The purpose of the prior informed consent procedure
is to allow countries to make their own informed decisions on future imports of
the chemical depending on their own needs, circumstances and uses of the
chemical. However, if a Party decides not to allow any future import of a PIC
chemical, then they must also ensure that any domestic manufacture and use of
the chemical is banned. Imports of the chemical from non-Parties to the
Convention should also not be allowed.
As at 31 October 2014, there were 154 parties to
the Convention. During the reporting period (June 2013 to December 2014), four
States- Afghanistan, Cambodia, Sao Tome and Principe and Indonesia acceded to
or ratified the Convention.
The substances listed in the Annex III include Alachlor,
Aldicarb, Aldrin, Azinphos-methyl, Binapacryl, Captafol, Chlordane, Chlordimeform,
Chlorobenzilate, DDT, Dieldrin, Dinitro-ortho-cresol (DNOC) and its salts (such
as ammonium salt, potassium salt and sodium salt), Dinoseb and its salts and esters, EDB
(1,2-dibromoethane), Endosulfan, Ethylene dichloride, Ethylene oxide, Fluoroacetamide,
HCH (mixed isomers), Heptachlor, Hexachlorobenzene, Lindane (gamma-HCH), Mercury
compounds, including inorganic mercury compounds, alkyl mercury compounds and
alkyloxyalkyl and aryl mercury compounds, Monocrotophos, Parathion, Pentachlorophenol
and its salts and esters, Toxaphene (Camphechlor), Tributyl tin compounds, Dustable
powder formulations containing a combination of benomyl at or above 7%,
carbofuran at or above 10% and thiram at or above 15%, Methamidophos (Soluble
liquid formulations of the substance that exceed 600 g active ingredient/l), Methyl-parathion
(Emulsifiable concentrates (EC) at or above 19.5% active ingredient and dusts
at or above 1.5% active ingredient), Phosphamidon (Soluble liquid formulations
of the substance that exceed 1000 g active ingredient/l), Actinolite asbestos, Anthophyllite,
Amosite asbestos, Crocidolite, Tremolite, Commercial octabromodiphenyl ether
(including Hexabromodiphenyl ether and Heptabromodiphenyl ether), Commercial
pentabromodiphenyl ether (including tetrabromodiphenyl ether and
pentabromodiphenyl ether), Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, perfluorooctane
sulfonates, perfluorooctane sulfonamides and perfluorooctane sulfonyls, Polybrominated
Biphenyls (PBBs), Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Polychlorinated Terphenyls
(PCTs), Tetraethyl lead, Tetramethyl lead and Tris (2,3 dibromopropyl) phosphate.
The list includes all forms of asbestos except
white chrysotile asbestos.
The seventh meeting of the Conference of the
Parties to the Rotterdam Convention (RC COP-7) was held from 4th to
15th May, 2015 simultaneously with the twelfth meeting of the
Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention (BC COP-12) and the seventh
meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention (SC
COP-7). The meetings included joint sessions among two or three of the
conferences of the parties on joint issues. The theme for the meetings of the
conferences of the parties to the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions was
‘From science to action, working for a safer tomorrow’.
In many countries, there are general provisions
that do not allow the use or importation of any chemical that is not registered
or approved. India should adopt such provisions and consider applying them to
white chrysotile asbestos.
Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI) is a
collective of researchers and social workers working for environmental and
occupational health justice in general and for elimination of asbestos of all
kinds from trade and use. It is struggling for just compensation for victims of
primary and secondary exposure, decontamination of asbestos laden buildings and
products and advocating adoption of non-hazardous alternatives to killer fibers
of asbestos. It isn’t structurally associated with the transnational alliances working
for asbestos free world. It is involved in struggling for a safe working and
living conditions for workers in the asbestos based industries, ship breaking
industry, construction industry, defence industry and other businesses. BANI’s work
is independent public interest research and advocacy work with grass root organizations
for safeguarding health of present and future generations.
BANI
demands strict implementation of occupational health surveillance scheme through
pre employment health examination and periodic health examination in industries
where is possibility of exposure to airborne asbestos. Such scheme for health
surveillance must include exposure data at each pertinent work place,
periodical examination of workers, X-ray examination for radiological changes,
lung function test for restrictive disorder and clinical examination for early
detection of signs of asbestosis. These tests must be recorded for
pre-employment, periodic surveillance and at cessation of employment.
Occupational health surveillance must be carried out by occupational physician
or chest physician trained in occupational medicine. The occupational health
surveillance program must be drawn for all the employees potentially exposed to
asbestos dust and it is to be provided free of cost.
BANI
demands maintenance and storage of medical records for period of 15 years
following the termination of employment or for 40 years after first day of
employment, whichever is later by employers, government agencies and workers
organizations. The medical records must be maintained covering the details of
pre-employment examination, the periodical medical examinations, medical
examination done at other times, if any and the medical examinations conducted
at cessation of employment and further follow-up examinations, where done.
BANI demands that individual employees’
occupational exposure profile to asbestos, specific work practices, and
preventive measures including plan for management of asbestos related diseases prescribed
must be recorded.
BANI
will continue to work for the inclusion of white chrysotile asbestos in the UN
list. Its efforts have led to inclusion of asbestos in the Inventory of Hazardous Chemicals Import in India and
inclusion of Waste Asbestos (Dust and Fibers) in the list of Hazardous Wastes
Prohibited for Import and Export under Schedule VI of Hazardous Wastes
(Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 under the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986. Its efforts led to the finding that 16 % workers in the
shipbreaking industry occupationally exposed to asbestos.
Notably, “Buying
asbestos is buying akin to buying cancer. I will get asbestos removed from my
residence. The ache of asbestos hazards is worse than the ache of unemployment”
said Awadesh Narain Singh, Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council, in a speech
available on www.youtube.com
The Report of Working Group on Occupational Safety and
Health, Xth Five Year Plan, Planning Commission observed that the
workers are also exposed to a host of hazardous substances, which have a
potential to cause serious occupational diseases such as asbestosis. It
revealed substantial prevalence of occupational health disorders amongst the
workers such as Asbestosis. The prevalence rate for Asbestosis was reported to
be 7.25%.
The
Vision Statement of Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change
recommends phase out of chrysotile asbestos saying, "Alternatives to
asbestos may be used to the extent possible and use of asbestos may be phased
out."
The Concept Paper of Union Ministry of Labour
presented at Fifth India-EU Seminar states,
“The Government of India is considering the ban the mining and use of
chrysotile asbestos in India to protect the workers and the general population
against primary and secondary exposure to Chrysotile form of Asbestos.”
Under Indian 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.
Irrespective of the outcome of the CoP 7 given the fact that
domestic laws are intact, it is high time Prime Minister intervened to ensure
that Union Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers and Union
Ministry of Commerce and Industry are not overwhelmed by Asbestos Cement
Products Manufacturers Association, a so-called not for profit organization, involved
in persuading government representatives to give priority to the profit of the indefensible
asbestos industry and to undermine public health concerns of present and future
generations.
As usual the working language for the UN conference
was Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish. BANI demands that documents
related to hazardous substances, whose exposure entails matters of life and
death must be made available in Indian languages as well for greater public
awareness, participation and action.
For Details: Gopal Krishna, Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI)-ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660, E-mail-1715krishna@gmail.com, Blog:banasbestosindia.blogspot.in Web: www.toxicswatch.org
6:06 AM
MoEF’s contention based DCPC’s note stating that “On the basis of the said note, the listing of Chrysotile Asbestos under Annex ‘A’ of Rotterdam Convention at CoP-6 during April 28th -May 10th 2013 at Geneva could not be supported” is misplaced.
The note of the ‘line department’, i.e. Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals (DCPC), Union Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers on the subject chrysotile asbestos. The note of the DCPC reveals that it has failed to understand the purpose of the Rotterdam Convention and ignorance about the objective of the Convention. The note is irrelevant from the point of view of the objective of the Convention for which it was prepared. While one disagrees with the findings of the conflict of interest ridden study conducted by the National Institute of Occupational Health, (NIOH), it is evident that even this study does not state that chrysotile asbestos is not a hazardous chemical. Had NIOH study concluded that Chrysotile Asbestos is not a hazardous chemical it may have become relevant. But even then it would have been legally unsustainable because under Indian laws chrysotile asbestos is a hazardous chemical.
Indian position on hazardous white chrysotile asbestos must be consistent with domestic law at UN's Rotterdam Convention meeting in Geneva
Written By Unknown on Saturday, March 28, 2015 | 6:06 AM
National Human Rights Commission asks Labour Mnistry to reveals steps taken to ban White Chrysotile Asbestos
Green Tribunal takes cognizance of impact of asbestos mining and unscientific closure
India should learn from more than 50 countries which have banned hazardous white chrysotile asbestos
After Japan, Nepal also bans asbestos in Asia
March 28, 2015: Ahead of the upcoming technical workshop of UN's Rotterdam Convention (RC) on white chrysotile asbestos scheduled during March 30-31, 2015 and 7th Conference of the Parties (COP7) of the UN's Rotterdam Convention (RC) in Geneva during May 12-15, 2015, National Human Rights Commissions’ observation and National Green Tribunal assumes great significance. Indian delegation must adhere to domestic law and should resist the unethical and immoral act of Mr. Vivek Chandra Rao Sripalle of Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers’ Association (ACPMA) who has been included in the Provisional list of participants at the Technical workshop on chrysotile asbestos.
India’s position at the last meeting of UN's Rotterdam Convention was inconsistent with domestic law.
It is noteworthy that 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.
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:
Government of India’s Inventory of Hazardous Chemicals Import in India that lists ‘asbestos’ at serial no. 26 as one of the 180 hazardous chemicals in international trade which is imported in India.
These laws and official documents were ignored by the Indian delegation under the accompanying representatives of the chrysotile asbestos industry.
In a significant development, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has taken cognizance of the fact that “the Union Ministry of Labour had expressed the opinion that the Govt. of India was considering the ban on use of Chrysotile Asbestos in India to protect the workers and the general population against primary and secondary exposure of Chrysotile form of Asbestos.” NHRC has sent a notice to “the Secretary, Ministry of Labour to give a report within six weeks as to whether any steps had been taken in this regard.” The attached NHRC document reveals the status as of March 28, 2015.
NHRC’s directions reads: “The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.206 of 1986 had given the following directions- ‘1. To maintain and keep maintaining the health record of every worker up to a minimum period of 40 years from the beginning of the employment or 15 years after retirement or cessation of the employment whichever is later; 2. The Membrane Filter Test, to detect asbestos fibre should be adopted by all the factories or establishments at par with the Metalliferrous Mines Regulations, 1961; and Vienna Convention and Rules issued thereunder; 3. All the factories whether covered by the Employees State Insurance Act or Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise are directed to compulsorily insure health coverage to every worker; 4. The Union and the State Governments are directed to review the standards of permissible exposure limit value of fibre/cc in tune with the international standards reducing the permissible contents 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 I.L.O. gives directions in this behalf consistent with its recommendations or any Conventions; 5. The Union and all the State Governments are directed to consider inclusion of such of those small scale factory or factories or industries to protect health hazards of the worker engaged in the manufacture of asbestos or its ancillary produce’."
NHRC directions reads: “The Labour Department, Bihar Government is directed to file a report within six weeks whether the directions contained in the Supreme Court order are being followed by all manufactures of Asbestos in the State of Bihar including Ramco Industries. The Director, Cancer Epidemiology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai has not sent his response on the subject matter so far. Registry is, therefore, directed to issue reminder to Director, Cancer Epidemiology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai to submit the required report within six weeks.”
NHRC has been seized with the matter since 2011 taking cognizance of a complaint alleging deaths of thousands of people die every year in the country due to Asbestos related cancer. The complainant has sought Commission's intervention for a ban on the use of Chrysotile Asbestos (White Asbestos), which is hazardous for the health of people and causes various incurable diseases. The white Asbestos is a fibrous material used for building roofs and walls and various in other forms. Citing contradictory position of the Government on the issue the complainant has alleged that though the mining of Asbestos has been technically banned by the government, but it allows its import and that too from the countries which do not prefer its domestic use. It is also alleged that white Asbestos is considered a hazardous chemical substance for environment by a number of countries in the world. However, it is being used in a number of industries in India affecting the workers employed their in. The complainant has also requested for grant of a compensation package for present and future victims of Asbestos diseases.
The Commission had issued notices to the Secretaries of Ministries of Chemical Fertilizers, Environment and Forest, Health and Family Welfare, Industry and Commerce, Labour and Chief Secretaries of all the States/Union Territories calling for status reports. The replies of most of the concerned authorities have been received. The Commission is all set to announce its recommendations.
In a related development Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change and Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers has been informed about the Statement of some 100 scientists calling on the Government of India to withdraw a discredited scientific study on chrysotile (white) asbestos and to stop blocking the listing of chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous substance at an upcoming UN meeting. The ‘Study of Health Hazards / Environmental hazards resulting from use of Chrysotile variety of Asbestos in the country’, carried out by the National Institute of Occupational Health (India), states that it found no evidence that chrysotile asbestos is causing harm to health of workers in India. The Government is using the study as the reason why it will oppose the listing of chrysotile asbestos under the Rotterdam Convention at a UN conference in Geneva in May. The Convention sets safety standards to promote responsible trade in hazardous substances. It may be noted that “The study has no scientific credibility,” stated Dr. Philip Landrigan, President of the Collegium Ramazzini and Dean for Global Health, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York. “It is flawed in the design, methodology and interpretation of the results,” he added. This statement is consistent with Supreme Court’s order and resolutions of ILO and WHO on chrysotile asbestos.
In another related development, National Green Tribunal remarked on March 23rd, 2015 took cognizance of asbestos mining in states like Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Jharkhand. It sought report on cases wherein “asbestos mining activity has been abandoned/closed, scientific closure of such mines remains in question.”
The Tribunal has asked the central environment ministry and Indian Bureau of Mines to “file list of asbestos mines located in the entire country and their present status, particularly as regards scientific closure of such mines.”
The Tribunal took congnisance of the list of existing 38 asbestos mines listed at the page 174 -extract from lease directory in the State of Rajasthan. In response, the State of Rajasthan has filed a status report dated 23.02.2015 which is supported with the affidavit and the annexure giving the description of asbestos mines. According to this report, 32 asbestos mines listed at annexure page -3 are closed and as regards others it is revealed at paragraph-2 of the report that the same have asbestos in meager quantity and are intended to work with respect to some other minerals, namely, Abrasive granite, Quartz, Feldspar and as such no asbestos mining is going on in the State of Rajasthan. The status report speaks about the asbestos mining having been stopped. However, there is nothing to suggest that the asbestos mines which were formerly being mined for asbestos have been scientifically closed or not. The Government of Rajasthan shall file a report regarding scientifically closure of the asbestos mines and the instances of asbestos is in the State of Rajasthan till today. Referring to the affidavits filed on behalf of respondent no. 5 –Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 26.02.2015, 26.08.2014 and the reply of respondent no. 8 –Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board dated 15.10.2014, learned Counsel appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh submitted that there were only five asbestos mines operating in the State of Andhra Pradesh the operations of three of which have been suspended since January/February, 2014 and as regards other 2 closed long back prior to 2014 and there have been no cases of asbestos related cancer registered till April, 2012. Asbestos mining not only gives rise to asbestos related cancer but also to the asbestosis. The State of Andhra Pradesh has been asked to further elaborate as to the cases of asbestos is, if any, registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh till today.
Tribunal was informed by the MoEF that there have been 42 asbestos mines in the State of Karnataka which are presently not functioning. However, it is not known that whether they have been scientifically closed or not. Issue Notice to the State of Karnataka and State of Jharkhand by registered post/acknowledgment due and Dasti as well. Notice to be served on the Resident Commissioners of the respective states. States of Karnataka and Jharkhand has been asked whether the asbestos mines have been closed scientifically or not and whether there have been any instances of asbestos is in their states.
Last time India delegation relied on an irrelevant note of the Ministry of Chemicals prepared on the basis of an admittedly questionable study of NIOH study. (PIB Release attached) The ICMR Annual Report 2011-2012 reported the “Study of Hazards/Environmental Hazards resulting from use of Chrysotile variety of asbestos in the country (Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, GOI)” as having been done. The Director, NIOH had sent a revised proposal on June 22, 2005 to Under Secretary. Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers,Government of India to conduct the study. A reply from Shri R N Jindal, Union Ministry of Environment & Forests based on Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals (DCPC)’s note dated June 18, 2013 on the issue of Government of India’s position on hazardous substance chrysotile asbestos at the Sixth Conference of Parties of (CoP-6) of the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade held during April 28-May 10, 2013 in Switzerland.
The 7 page long attached note of the Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals (DCPC), Union Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers on the subject of Chrysotile Asbestos titled ‘Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals’ View on the use of Chrysotile Asbestos” in the country’ was shared with me by the Union Ministry of Environment & Forests.
MoEF’s contention based DCPC’s note stating that “On the basis of the said note, the listing of Chrysotile Asbestos under Annex ‘A’ of Rotterdam Convention at CoP-6 during April 28th -May 10th 2013 at Geneva could not be supported” is misplaced.
The note of the ‘line department’, i.e. Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals (DCPC), Union Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers on the subject chrysotile asbestos. The note of the DCPC reveals that it has failed to understand the purpose of the Rotterdam Convention and ignorance about the objective of the Convention. The note is irrelevant from the point of view of the objective of the Convention for which it was prepared. While one disagrees with the findings of the conflict of interest ridden study conducted by the National Institute of Occupational Health, (NIOH), it is evident that even this study does not state that chrysotile asbestos is not a hazardous chemical. Had NIOH study concluded that Chrysotile Asbestos is not a hazardous chemical it may have become relevant. But even then it would have been legally unsustainable because under Indian laws chrysotile asbestos is a hazardous chemical.
The concluding sentence of the DCPC’s note saying, “In view of the above, India may take a stand in the next CoP meeting of Rotterdam Convention for not inclusion of chrysotile asbestos in Annexure-III of Convention. The flawed conclusion of the note titled ‘Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals’ View on the use of Chrysotile Asbestos” in the country’ is quite stark and will not stand scrutiny of logic.
The verdict of five judges of Japan’s Supreme Court of February 17, 2015 is quite relevant in this regard. It has upheld a ruling that found asbestos used at a plant of Kubota Corporation caused fatal mesothelioma in a man who lived near the plant and ordered the company to pay ¥31.9 million in damages to his relatives. The petitioners were relatives of Kojiro Yamauchi, who died at age 80 after working for two decades about 200 meters from the Kubota plant in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture. His relatives and those of Ayako Yasui, who died at age 85 having lived about 1 km from the plant, sought damages from both Kubota and the government. In October, 2014 the Supreme Court ruled that the government was responsible for failing to protect workers from exposure at asbestos factories in Sennan, Osaka Prefecture.
It is noteworthy that Japan has banned asbestos of all kinds including white chrysotile asbestos.
Meanwhile, Nepal has become the first country in South Asia which going in the direction of banning asbestos and joined more than 50 countries which have banned hazardous white chrysotile asbestos.
For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660, E-mail:1715krishna@gmail.com, Web: www.toxicswatch.org
Labels:
Ban Asbestos

