Comments/Suggestions on Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)'s draft Standard Operating Procedure for installation, dismantling and disposal of asbestos cement roof sheets, asbestos cement wall sheets and asbestos cement pipes
By
India Asbestos Victims Association(IAVA)
September 2026
I. The Draft Standard Operating Procedure for installation, dismantling and disposal of asbestos cement roof sheets, asbestos cement wall sheets and asbestos cement pipes has been published in the aftermath of the 24-page long judgement dated January 27, 1995 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Consumer Education & Research Centre vs. Union of India & Ors. 1995 AIR 922 which directed review of asbestos related regulations and standards in view of ILO’s directions in this behalf consistent with its recommendations, order of National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to“Replace the asbestos sheets roofing with roofing made up of some other material that would not be harmful to inmates”in Case No.693/30/97-98, adoption of the 75-page long Report of the WTO’s Appellate Body by WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body on April 5,2001 upholding right of countries to protect public health, subsequent to Canada’s request in respect of measures imposed by France with respect to the prohibition of asbestos and products containing asbestos, including a ban on imports of such goods, adoption of Resolution concerning asbestos by the 95th Session of the International Labour Conference of International Labour Organization (ILO) in June 2006,the adoption of 19-page long Vision Statement on Environment and Human Health by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the focal ministry of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), successful citizen’s protests against asbestos based factories in Bhojpur, Muzaffarpur, Vaishali, Madhubani and West Champaran in Bihar and Bargarh in Odisha and National Green Tribunal (NGT)’s order dated March 24, 2025 and judgement dated October 30, 2025.
II. Pursuant to the Vision Statement on Environment and Human Health which states that “Environmental epidemiological studies are required to be carried out near to industrial estates and hazardous waste disposal sites to estimate the extent of health risks including from asbestos. Alternatives to asbestos may be used to the extent possible and use of asbestos may be phased out”, there was logical compulsion for the CPCB to prepare a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for installation, dismantling and disposal of asbestos cement roof sheets, asbestos cement wall sheets, asbestos cement pipes and all the asbestos based products. But CPCB waited for the NGT’s order dated March 24, 2025 and judgement October 30, 2025 to come out with the 17-page long Draft SOP.
III. It is rightly stated at page no. 1 of the Draft SOP that “Asbestos mining is not being carried out in India. License for mining asbestos are not being issued” since 1993 and white chrysotile asbestos “imports from Russia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Hungry and Poland” are flooding India. It does not factor in the fact that like taking a step further than Hon’ble Supreme Court of India’s decision of January 1995, the Supreme Court of Brazil has imposed a national prohibition on use of all kinds of asbestos in 2017. It has held that there were: “no safe levels of exposure to chrysotile asbestos, a mineral proven to be carcinogenic, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the international scientific community.”
IV. The relevant paragraph 1.1 at page no. 1 of the Draft SOP does not factor in the fact that Poland banned asbestos in 1997, while the broader European Union—including Hungary—enforced a complete ban on the use and marketing of asbestos by January 1, 2005. Poland Introduced a strict statutory ban on the production, use, and marketing of asbestos products in 1997, before joining the EU. Unlike India, Poland has established a national timeline aiming for the complete removal and neutralization of asbestos infrastructure by 2032. Hungary has complied with EU-wide regulations, enacting its full prohibition alongside the European Union Asbestos Ban effective January 1, 2005.
V.The above mentioned paragraph of the Draft SOP does not factor in the fact that according to International Ban asbestos Secretariat, as of June 2026, there is national asbestos bans in the following 74 countries including Poland and Hungry:-
1) Algeria,
2) Denmark,
3) Iraq,
4) Mauritius,
5) Serbia,
6) Argentina,
7) Djibouti,
8) Ireland,
9) Moldova,
10) Seychelles,
11) Australia,
12) Egypt,
13) Israel,
14) Monaco,
15) Slovakia,
16) Austria,
17) Estonia,
18) Italy,
19) Mozambique,
20) Slovenia,
21) Bahrain,
22) Finland,
23) Ivory Coast,
24) Nauru,
25) South Africa,
26) Belgium,
27) France,
28) Japan,
29) Netherlands,
30) Spain,
31) Brazil,
32) Gabon,
33) Jordan,
34) New Caledonia,
35) Sweden,
36) Brunei,
37) Germany,
38) South Korea,
39) New Zealand,
40) Switzerland,
41) Bulgaria,
42) Gibraltar,
43) Kuwait,
44) Norway,
45) Taiwan,
46) Canada
47) Greece
48) Latvia
49) Oman
50) Turkey
51) Chile
52) Greenland
53) Liechtenstein
54) Poland
55) United Kingdom
56) Colombia
57) Honduras
58) Lithuania
59) Portugal
60) United States
61) Croatia
62) Hungary
63) Luxembourg
64) Qatar
65) Uruguay
66) Cyprus
67) Iceland
68) Macedonia
69) Romania
70) Ukraine
71) Czech Republic
72) Iran
73) Malta
74) Saudi Arabia
VI. The Draft SOP and trade in asbestos waste (dust and fibers) is also banned.
VII. It is evident from the paragraph 2.1 of the Draft SOP of CPCB that CPCB relies on “the information provided by the Fibre Cement Products Manufacturers Association (FCPMA)” but does not disclose the fact that during the proceedings in the Original Application No. 298 of 2023 before the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal in New Delhi, the Fibre Cement Products Manufacturers Association was added as the fourth respondent. It does not factor in the fact that FCPMA was originally named Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers Association (ACPMA), a NGO registered under Indian Societies Act 1860 in 1985 to promote Chrysotile Asbestos Cement Products (Sheets and Pipes) in India. It has faced allegations in 2012–2013 by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) leading to a suo motu inquiry of cartelisation by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in 2014. The change of name may have been promoted because of the charge of cartelisation. Realizing the notoriety of “asbestos”, it has removed it from its name and replaced it with the term “fiber”. Based on the information from the industry association which is masquerading as an NGO, it is admitted that 3.4 lakh ton asbestos was used for cement-asbestos sheet production during 2023-24. According to the Annual Report 2024-25 of the Union Ministry of Mines, it is estimated that over 4.6 lakh tonnes of chrysotile asbestos was imported into the India during 2023-24. It is crystal clear from the Draft SOP that CPCB is aware that while mining of asbestos is banned in Indian due to its harmful effect on health and it is also aware foreign asbestos is being used by members of FCPMA/ACPMA to manufacture asbestos based products, to the detriment of the health of present and future generation of Indians.
VIII. The Draft SOP of the CPCB has factored in the submission before the NGT, MOEFCC has cited relevant rules under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 with regard to hazardous asbestos waste but without showing its application and implementation in the present context. MOEFCC submitted that “the waste asbestos generated from the Production of asbestos or asbestos-containing materials are regulated under the Hazardous and Other wastes (Management & Transboundary Movement) (HOWM) Rules, 2016, and has been classified as under S. No 15 of Schedule I of Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'HOWM Rules') which includes (i) Asbestos-containing residues; (ii) Discarded asbestos and (iii) dust and particulates from exhaust gas treatment…the import of waste asbestos (dust and fibers) is prohibited in the country….”
IX. The Draft SOP of the CPCB must address both the existing and the legacy asbestos waste, end-of-life asbestos products, end-of-life asbestos laden buildings, end-of-life asbestos laden ships, end-of-life asbestos cement water supply pipes. It must provide an advisory to all the foreign embassies and consulates including the buildings of the 74 countries which have banned asbestos of all kinds.
X. The Draft SOP must factor in the fact that the three schedules under Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 which amalgamates 13 laws including the Factories Act, 1948, the Mines Act, 1952, the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the Inter-State Migrant workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979, the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986 and the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 entered into force. They refer to asbestos and asbestos related disease, asbestosis, an incurable disease, implying its hazardous nature. The manufacture, handling and processing of Asbestos and its products have been declared as hazardous process.
XI. The Draft SOP must pay heed to the reply of the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in the Parliament. It informed that “The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has informed that major health hazards of asbestos include cancer of lung, mesothelioma of pleura and peritoneum and specific fibrous disease of lung known as asbestosis. All types of asbestos fibers are responsible for human mortality and morbidity.” It has been admitted that studies by NIOH, Ahmedabad show that workers when exposed to higher workplace concentration of asbestos fiber have higher incidence of interstitial lung disease and pulmonary function impairment. DGFASLI has intimated data of workers suffering from Asbestosis in factories registered under the Factories Act, 1948. It has informed that 21 Asbestosis cases were reported in Gujarat in 2010 and 2 cases in Maharashtra in the year 2012. The reply did not reveal whether compensation was paid to them.
XII. The Draft SOP ought to incorporate what was revealed at the 5th India-EU Joint Seminar on “Occupational Safety and Health”, Union Ministry of Labour. It revealed 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 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".
XIII. Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts have consistently expressed their serious concerns regarding exposure to these carcinogenic mineral fibers and has asked the central and state governments to update their laws as per fresh resolution of ILO, which has sought elimination of future use of white chrysotile asbestos to safeguard human health. But there has not been compliance with the directions so far. Instead of complying, the government informed the parliament that “There is no proposal under the consideration of Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to prohibit the use of asbestos in the country”. The fact is that this ban pre-dates the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
XIV. The Draft SOP ought to refer to the findings of the Dr. S. P. Varma led panel. In February 1966, the Ministry of Industry and Supply, Government of India constituted a panel of eight officials under the Chairmanship of Dr. Varma, Industrial Adviser, Directorate General of Technical Development to examine “possible substitutes for asbestos cement products” like asphaltic roofing sheets among others issues. The panel included asbestos industry representatives from Asbestos Cement Limited-Hindustan Ferodo Limited, Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Limited, Digvijay Cement Company Limited. This was not the first time that the asbestos companies were included in the government’s panel to study asbestos and its substitutes.
XV. The Draft SOP must factor in the admission in the Parliament that the National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH) which conducted “Study of Health hazards/Environmental hazards resulting from use of Chrysotile variety of Asbestos in the country” got 26 % of its funds from the Asbestos Cement Product Manufacturer Association and 76 % from Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers, a ministry which has been opposing listing of white chrysotile asbestos in the UN list of hazardous chemicals. The study was done at the behest of the the ministry “in the context of ongoing developments under the Rotterdam Convention to bring this chemical in the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) ambit”. The health status of workers of Kolkata based asbestos sheet manufacturing unit of Everest Industries Ltd was subjected to study by NIOH. The study period was for two weeks in the month of August through September. These are the months of rainy season wherein the risk of having asbestos fibers or suspended particulate matters in air likely to be low. The time period for the study was so narrow that it cannot capture the health status of workers because asbestos related diseases have a latency period of several years. The study admits that 12 out of 200 workers of the factory did not give their consent to subject themselves to the study. It implies that only 94% of the workers allowed themselves to be studied. The study made no attempt to ascertain the health status of 6% of the workers in violation of the Supreme Court’s judgement of 1995 in the CERC case seeking “health records of every worker up to a minimum period of 40 years from start of employment or 15 years after retirement or cessation of employment.”
The minutes of the meeting of the Review Committee of the study by NIOH provided details about the status of the Everest Industries Limited. The minutes was obtained from NIOH under the Right To Information Act, 2005. The minutes of the meeting of Review Committee dated April 18, 2007 states that it was decided that “S. Ganesan of ICC (Indian Chemical Council) and NIOH representatives will redraft/re-word the Kolkata report keeping in view the international sensitivities.” The minutes of the meeting of Review Committee dated September 14, 2006 showed “about 32% of the workers with impaired lung function. The major abnormality was restrictive type.” Out of 13 participants of the meeting of the Review Committee, seven were representatives of asbestos industry from Hyderabad Industries Limited, Everest Industries Limited, Ramco Industries Limited, UAL Limited, Visaka Industries Limited, Sahyadri Industries Limited and Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers Association. In some meetings of the Review Committee, the officials from Asbestos Information Centre (AIC), a asbestos industry entity and Indian Chemical Council, an industry body were also present. The role of AIC came out from the information accessed under the Canadian Access to Information Act.
The information dated March 4, 2003, from the Natural Resources Ministry of Canada revealed that “The Indian government has worked diligently in cooperation with the Indian Asbestos Information Centre (AIC) and the Canadian Asbestos Institute.” Canadian High Commission in India wrote, “A ruling which states that subjecting a worker to asbestos is a violation of human rights could have far reaching consequences whether or not it is binding".
The Information made available the Canadian right to information law shows that Second Secretary (Commercial), Canadian High Commission in India was in correspondence with India’s ministry of environment, labour and commerce "to discuss promotion of the safe-use of chrysotile asbestos and confirm India's continued market access and policy approach (controlled-use) regarding chrysotle asbestos". The same Canada has made the life and health of its citizens safe by banning all kinds of asbestos including white chrysotile asbestos but India is yet to do so. The outcome of this conflict-of-interest ridden study was doctored to safeguard the interest of the industry, instead of public health. The study recommended: “In general, education and training of the workers should be regularly conducted. These programmes should cover the health hazards associated with asbestos exposure, safe handling of asbestos and the preventive measures available so as to make the environment totally safe for the workers” disregarding the fact that safe and controlled use of asbestos has not been possible in the 70 countries that have banned it. This recommendation of the NIOH’s study is consistent with the position of the sponsor of the study.
From information obtained under the Right To Information Act 2005, it also came to light that the industry consultation prior to finalization of the NIOH’s study report was put as a pre-condition by the sponsor of the study. The minutes of the meeting of Review Committee dated December 19, 2006 reads: “The report will be finalized after due discussions with the asbestos industry.” Prior to this a letter from the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers to the Director, NIOH dated April 24, 2006 reads: “After submitting the draft report, NIOH will organize a national workshop to discuss the findings with the relevant industry stakeholders and based on the feedback the final report will be prepared”. It is evident that the NIOH’s study is indefensible. This questionable study by NIOH is repeatedly cited and published by the industry and the government to defend continued trade, manufacture and use of white chrysotile asbestos and to oppose its listing as a hazardous chemical in the UN list. It is unmindful of the fact that even this study refers to “Hazardous Substances Database. National Library of Medicine” at page no. 118, which includes asbestos. A dossier on the NIOH’s study stated that the study is ill-conceived and methodologically flawed. It is a travesty of what is considered credible science. It concluded:"the fact that it is sponsored reviewed, and vetted by those who stand to gain or lose from its verdict makes it absolutely unethical….It is clear that the study needs to be urgently debated and reviewed. Unless and until the foregoing doubts and allegations are addressed, the study cannot absolve itself from the charges of being unscientific, tendentious and unethical."
XVI. The Draft SOP ought to note that the NIOH’s study did not factor in the asbestos exposure incidents at Alang beach, Bhavnagar, Gujarat has been acknowledged in the report of the Committee of Technical Experts (CTE) on Hazardous Wastes relating to Shipbreaking set up by the Supreme Court. The committee found that 16 per cent of the workers suffered from asbestosis. The final report of CTE took note of asbestos victims in the ship-breaking industry. It cited the “Medical Examination of the Asbestos Handlers” by a team of NIOH which concludes, “The X ray examination by NIOH showed linear shadows on chest X rays of 15 (16 %) of 94 workers occupationally exposed to asbestos. These are consistent with asbestosis…” This study is consistent with the study that confirmed increased incidence of overall cancer, esophagus cancer, and trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer which has been found associated with the level of exposure to asbestos among shipbreaking workers. The 15 workers who were found exposed to asbestos fibers and who were identified by the NIOH have not been given compensation in compliance with the direction of the Supreme Court. The NIOH studies are considered significant because it is the only agency authorized by the Court to certify asbestos related diseases in the country in its order dated January 27, 1995.
XVII. The Draft SOP must factor in the “National Study on Occupational Safety, Health and Working Environment in Asbestos Cement Product Industries” done by Directorate General Factory Advice Service and Labour Institutes (DGFASLI) under the Ministry of Labour and Employment which found that out of 2603 workers, 10 cases were found to be suspected cases of asbestos related disorders. The study was carried out during November 2018-February 2019 covering 50 functional asbestos cement product industries of the country.
XVIII. The Draft SOP ought to pay attention to the paper published in Public Health Action, Dr. R. Singh and Prof. A. L. Frank have examined the DGFASLI’s study. They have concluded that “This study has some potential limitations, including the possibility that disease latency could be a factor, as the presence of disease may only be revealed decades after exposure. Furthermore, there appears to be no record of external peer review by an organisation outside the one conducting the study”. The industry sponsored NIOH’s study too had faced similar criticism. It is also not clear as to whether these 10 victims of asbestos related disorders/diseases identified in the DGFASLI’s study have been given compensation as is required as per the judgement of Supreme Court. The fact remains that this study does not capture the enormity of public health crisis which has engulfed workers and their families besides consumers through secondary exposure. It is estimated that 50, 000 Indians are dying every year due to exposure to carcinogenic fibers of all white chrysotile fibers and other asbestos fibers.
XIX. The framers of the Draft SOP must recall that in compliance with the order of National Green Tribunal (NGT) dated January 7, 2020, the Jharkhand government informed that health check up of 565 local residents was done. It revealed that symptoms of asbestosis disease had been found in 164 out of 565 local residents of Roro asbestos mines, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum district after the lease given to Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Product Limited lapsed in 1983. It did not disclose whether these 164 resident have been compensated in compliance with Hon’ble Supreme Court’s directions.
XX. The framers of the Draft SOP must note that WHO has pointed out that “The burden of asbestos-related diseases is still rising, even in countries that banned the use of asbestos in the early 1990s. Because of the long latency periods attached to the asbestos related diseases, stopping the use of asbestos now will result in a decrease in the number of asbestos-related deaths only after a number of decades”. These observations of WHO have not inspired action in India.
XXI. The framers of the Draft SOP ought to recollect that a Technical Committee by Ministry of Industry to examine the health impact of asbestos in 1994. The Office Memorandum stated: "The Department has generally not been recommending any case of Industrial License to any new unit for the creation of fresh capacity of asbestos products in the recent past due to the apprehension that prolonged exposure to asbestos leads to serious health hazards". Such apprehensions led to search for the substitutes of asbestos. There are specific alternatives for specific needs. For instance, as substitute fibers in fiber-cement products, the materials used as substitutes for asbestos in fiber-cement sheet and pipe are polyvinyl alcohol, cellulose, and polypropylene fibers. The mixture of polyvinyl alcohol-cellulose and polypropylene fibers-cellulose are used in fiber-cement sheets, and cellulose are used in non-pressure pipes used for sewerage, etc. There are alternatives of asbestos cement pipes and sheets besides polyvinyl alcohol fibers and cellulose in fiber-cement roofing sheet.
XXII. The Draft SOP must provide the enormity of alternatives to all kinds of asbestos. For asbestos-cement corrugated roofing sheet, substitute products include fiber-cement roofing using: synthetic fibers (polyvinyl alcohol, polypropylene) and vegetable/cellulose fibers (softwood kraft pulp, bamboo, sisal, coir, rattan shavings and tobacco stalks, etc.); with optional silica fume, flyash, or rice husk ash. It also includes: Microconcrete (Parry) tiles, Galvanized metal sheets, Clay tiles, Vegetable fibers in asphalt, Slate Coated metal tiles (Harveytile), Aluminum roof tiles (Dekra Tile), Extruded uPVC roofing sheets, Recycled polypropylene and high-density polyethylene and crushed stone (Worldroof), Plastic coated aluminum and Plastic coated galvanized steel. For asbestos cement pipes, the alternatives are: Cast iron and ductile iron pipe, High-density polyethylene pipe, Polyvinyl chloride pipe, Steel-reinforced concrete pipe (large sizes) and Glass-reinforced polyester pipe. Similarly, alternatives are available for Asbestos-Cement Water Storage Tanks, Asbestos-Cement Rainwater Gutters; Open Drains (Mining Industry) and Asbestos-Cement Flat Sheet (ceilings, facades, partitions).
XXIII. The framers of the Draft SOP ought to pay heed to a significant development, wherein, Union Ministry of Railways has ordered removal of asbestos roofs from all railway buildings including over 7,349 railway platforms across the country. It invited offers for “Procurement of Non-Asbestos “K” Type Composition Brake Blocks”. In a related development in its reply the Executive Engineer, Central Public Work Department (CPWD), Ministry of Urban Affairs has submitted to the NGT that as per Delhi Schedule of Rates (DSR)- 2021 published by the CPWD, a comprehensive technical document for execution of civil works which is used by several departments, institutions, public sector undertakings, architects and builders besides CPWD "no item based on Asbestos material has been provided and therefore, the Asbestos materials are not considered to be used in the works being executed by CPWD or any other works associated with Ministry of Urban Affairs". The DSR consists of rates of different type of materials, hire charges of machinery and labour. The DSR-2021 have the items for different types of roofing like RCC Roofing, Galvanized Steel Sheet Roofing, Organic/Inorganic synthetic fiber cement, corrugated and semi corrugated roofing, stone slab roofing, insulated board roofing etc which are going to be asbestos free.
XXIV. The framers of the Draft SOP ought to seek report of the Advisory Committee of Union Ministry of Labour set up in 2012 to implement Hon’ble Supreme Court order dated January 27, 1995. Its Terms of Reference included incorporation of specific directions vide ILO’s Resolution of 2006 introducing a ban on all mining, manufacture, recycling and use of all forms of asbestos. Several years have passed but the report of the Advisory Committee is yet to see the light of the day. If the Supreme Court’s 29 year old verdict and it six directions are read in the light of the scientific, medical and legal findings at a global level, there is a compelling reason for banning the import of all kinds of asbestos by India because human biology is same world over. Asbestos in air at work place is a major cause of adverse effects on the health of industrial workers. The risk of asbestos related exposure is there in shipbuilding, railway engineering sites, manufacturing of asbestos based products, metal plate workers, carpenters, plumbers, gas fitters, construction workers, builders and production fitters and electricians. The maintenance and building workers, plumbers, electricians, joiners, computer installers, telephone installers and fire alarm installers face high risk of exposure to these carcinogenic fibers. ILO has estimated that between 610,000 – 635,000 deaths are annually caused by work related cancers. The asbestos component of this figure could be as high as 100,000 including asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma, assuming that world labour force is about 2.7 billions.
XXV. In the Occupational Health and Safety Association (OHSA) case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recalled the 1995 decision in CERC case wherein it has been held that the right to health and medical care to protect one’s health and vigour, while in service or post-retirement, is a fundamental right of a worker under Article 21 read with Articles 39(e), 41, 43, 48-A and all related Articles and fundamental human rights to make the life of the workman meaningful and purposeful with dignity of person. The Court held that “the compelling necessity to work in an industry exposed to health hazards due to indigence to bread-winning for himself and his dependents should not be at the cost of health and vigour of the workman....Right to health i.e. right to live in a clean, hygienic and safe environment is a right flowing from Article 21. Clean surroundings lead to healthy body and healthy mind. But, unfortunately, for eking a livelihood and for national interest, many employees work in dangerous, risky and unhygienic environment”. The expression 'life' assured in Article 21 of the Constitution does not connote mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life. The right to human dignity, development of personality, social protection, right to rest and leisure are fundamental human rights. Not prohibiting the import of asbestos is a violation of Article 21 of the Indian constitution.
XXVI. Unmindful of the wisdom of WHO, ILO, Supreme Court, Calcutta High Court, Patna High Court, Chief Minister of Bihar and other ministries of environment, health and labour, Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry has issued a the Asbestos or Fibre Cement based Products (Quality Control) Order, 2024 pertaining to goods and articles made from asbestos or fibre cement based products. This order disregards the findings of WTO’s Appellate Body which makes a case for phase out of asbestos and asbestos based products. This order mandates that such products must adhere to the corresponding Indian Standard 2098:1997, specifically focusing on (Asbestos Cement Building Boards). India has communicated this order to WTO's Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade about its Asbestos/Fibre Cement based Products (Quality Control) Order. It is apparent that the position of ministry of commerce and industry remains caught in the time warp of of 2000 when India and Brazil had protested against the approach of WTO’s Appellate Body in the matter of French ban on Canadian chrysotile asbestos. With the passage of time Canada itself has abandoned the position it took before the WTO’s judicial forum and has banned mining, trade and use of chrysotile asbestos which used to be exported to India. The ministry of commerce and industry seems oblivious to the right to health of persons, citizens and workers. Meanwhile, the Brazilian Supreme Court delivered a decision prohibited production and commerce of asbestos throughout Brazil. The Court declared the law, which regulates the exploration of minerals in the country and allows for the utilization of asbestos in a "controlled" fashion to be unconstitutional. It was analyzing a case involving the law in the State of Rio de Janeiro, but the ban is valid for the entire country. This decision has created a new pattern of integration between international and constitutional law for future cases focused on collective fundamental rights. But Indians will continue to be victims of Brazilian asbestos because it has not prohibited external trade.
XXVII. The framers of the Draft SOP ought to note that the secondary exposure to asbestos used in construction has resulted in higher incidence of cancer among those living under asbestos roofs. The situation in India is aggravated among the most deprived and marginalized communities because as many as 16.4 per cent in the rural areas and 20 per cent in the urban areas live and work under asbestos roofs. Some 79 per cent of Dalits live in such houses. This came to light from the 2011 Census figures released on the Scheduled Caste households by amenities and assets by the Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner. Although mining of all kinds of asbestos is technically banned in India, the Minister for Chemicals and Fertilizers and Minister of Health Family Welfare informed the parliament that “Government of India has not banned the use of any type of asbestos in the country….the chrysotile asbestos is not included in Annexure-III of the Rotterdam Convention and is imported without any prior consent”. It appears quite unreasonable to defend import of a hazardous substance without prior informed consent procedure, which is an established norm under the UN laws. What is hazardous poisonous in some 75 countries cannot be non-hazardousness and non-poisonous for India. If Indian asbestos is carcinogenic and is rightly banned in India, it is indefensible to imply that non-Indian asbestos of are non-carcinogenic and do not deserve to be banned on scientific and medical grounds. This situation has arisen because there is a manifest conflict of interest between one minister’s role as a health minister and chemicals minister when the same person heads both the ministries. It is apparent that the mandate of the ministry of chemicals is not letting him fulfill the mandate of the ministry of health. The mandate of the former includes promotion of substances and chemicals like asbestos. The mandate of the latter is to prevent promotion of substances and chemicals like asbestos to safeguard the health of present and future generation of Indians. Instead of refusing to see the writing on the wall, ministry of chemicals and the ministry of health should pay heed to the steps being taken by ministry of urban affairs for adopting non-asbestos approach. This shows a healthy path to most of the urban development departments and urban local bodies, which are yet to stop usage of asbestos in all the municipalities and in some 7, 935 urban centres. The ministry of rural development and panchayati raj is yet to apprise all the panchayats to refrain from procurement of construction of asbestos cements sheets and other asbestos based products to ensure asbestos free villages.
XXVIII. The framers of the Draft SOP ought to desist from defending the indefensible asbestos factories. It was the compulsion of officials of the ministry of commerce, finance, chemicals and defense which lead to disasters like the one witnessed in the Bhopal based factory of UCC's hazardous plant end up becoming the order of the day. The reference to the disaster of 1984 by Hon’ble Patna High Court in the asbestos case is relevant because Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), the US company was also in the asbestos business whose liability is now owned by its buyer US based Dow Chemicals Company. Dow has assigned $ 2.2 billion dollars for compensation fund to the victims in US where 10, 000 people are dying every year from asbestos related diseases. In India, no such asbestos fund has been created by the asbestos companies and their association to compensate the victims of asbestos related diseases.
XXIX. The framers of Draft SOP from CPCB must draw lessons from the fate of the report of the 5-member committee of the CPCB prepared on the orders of the Hon’ble Patna High Court. The Hon’ble Court had asked CPCB a five-member committee of Central Pollution Control Board to conduct a thorough inspection of the partially constructed asbestos based unit of Utkal Asbestos Limited (UAL) in Vaishali district of Bihar. CPCB’s report seemed to irrationally favour the company without any scientific basis. Although CPCB tried to exert undue influence on Bihar State Pollution Control Board (BSPCB), the latter resisted it. Hon’ble High Court allowed the BSPCB to take a decision. After BSPCB was presented a memorandum signed by 10, 000 villagers, BSPCB’s Chairman concluded the factory had violated the Battery Limit fixed for such hazardous industries. The then Chief Minister of Bihar assured the Bihar State assembly that such plants will not be constructed in the State.
XXX. The framers of Draft SOP from CPCB ought to pay urgent attention to the following methods in disposing of asbestos waste (dust and fibers) in Bihiya, Bhojpur, Bihar by Tamil Nadu based the Ramco Industries Limited in question:
i) .Using excavators the broken sheets are crushed and buried deep inside factory premises. The broken pieces pose a grave threat to the ground water shared by fertile agriculture land and villagers who use it for drinking purpose.
ii) Since there is no space to bury the asbestos waste and broken asbestos products are sold to fictitious or known dealers on ex- factory basis to discard company's responsibility for disposal. Normally, the destination of duch disposal will be in remote locations and buried on fertile lands or used for land filling and covered by sand permanently. It seems to be a corporate crime but logical from company's perspective as no one will pay 4 times the cost for transportation for a zero value material.
iii) The broken ast based sheets are cut inside factory into unmarketable sizes like 1 meter length and gifted as CSR activities. The cutting process emits lot of asbestos dust and fibers harmful for the workers and villagers.
iv) Broken asbestos sheets and wastes during transit handling or from customer end are brought to depot at various locations to harden top soil or land filling which again poses a threat to ground water. Cutting broken bigger asbestos sheets also pose danger as asbestos fibers become air borne.
v) Wherever cement is handled in bags inside factory it creates occupational hazard for workers due to asbestos dust particles. This is a threat to villagers as well because the air quality in the area gets polluted.
vi) The company has been donating asbestos based roofs to the nearby Mahthin Mai temple in the vicinity of Bihiya railway station, Bhojpur and to the parking space of the District Magistrate's office as an exercise in ethical positioning of it's bran and as a public relations exercise. Villagers, temple devotees and the district administration has been taken for a ride. They have acted in complete ignorance of BSPCB's action against company's factories. The company in question has permission to operate one unit of the factory but it is running two units.
The goings on related to unsound and unscientific disposal of asbestos waste in proximity of the two units of asbestos factories in Bihiya, Bhojpur run by Ramco Industries Limited and the abandoned asbestos factory in Giddha, Koilwar, Bhojpur of Tamil Nadu based Nibhi Industries merits immediate attention to safeguard the environmental health of present and future residents of Bhojpur from hazardous asbestos waste in particular.
In the light of the above, based on field visits and scientific studies, it is established that all asbestos based products including roofs, walls and pipes will become waste at the end of their life cycle. This implies that the law must apply to asbestos based products through out its life cycle which creates a compelling logic for its trade, manufacture and use to be banned, the way trade in asbestos waste and mining of asbestos are banned. CPCB’s final SOP must pave the way for MOEFCC to stop grant of the Environmental Clearance (EC) to industries engaged in asbestos milling and asbestos based products under schedule 4 (c) of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The final SOP should pave the way for preparation of a asbestos decontamination plan by preparing a register of all asbestos products and a register of asbestos laden buildings and products and set up a compensation fund for the victims.
