India's Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs ought to draw lessons from the efforts by US EPA to protect the public from adverse health effects of asbestos, a known carcinogen.
Having banned mining of asbestos, trade in asbestos waste and use of asbestos roofs on 7,349 railway platforms, Indian government has initiated a campaign for making schools asbestos free. Notably, the top Indian leaders were kept under asbestos roofs during Internal Emergency imposed in June 1975.
Significantly, Nitish Kumar, Bihar's Chief Minister had assured the State Assembly on July 2, 2019 that no new asbestos based factories will be allowed in the state. Several legislators had raised questions regarding asbestos based plants in Bihar State Assembly and Bihar Legislative Council in the backdrop of people's anti-asbestos struggle against proposed asbestos based factories following which the construction of these factories were stopped in the districts of 1) Muzaffarpur, 2) Vaishali, 3) Madhubani, 4) West Champaran and 5) Giddha, Koelwar, Bhojpur in Bihar. These unsuccessful proposals were made by 1) West Bengal based Utkal Balmukund Cement & Roofings Ltd, 2) Bengal based Utkal Asbestos Industries Ltd, 3) Rajasthan based A Infrastructure Ltd, 4) Telangana based Hyderabad Industries Ltd, 5) Tamil Nadu based Nibhi Industries Private Limited.
Taking a consistent position against asbestos based plants and pursuant to complain against the company, Vivek Kumar Singh, as Chairman, Bihar State Pollution Control Board (BSPCB) had cancelled the Non-Objection Certificates (NOCs) given to the hazardous enterprise of Ramo company Under Water(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and rules 3 (1) Schedule 1 of Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules under Environment (Protection) Act 1986 which deals with hazardous wastes generated during the production of asbestos or asbestos-containing materials including asbestos-containing residues, discarded asbestos and dust/particulates from exhaust gas treatment.
Following the cancellation of NOCs, Ramco company approached the Appellate Authority to appeal against the cancellation. At the hearing of their appeal the Appellate Authority happened to be same Vivek Kumar Singh himself who as Chairman, Bihar State Pollution Control Board (BSPCB) had cancelled their NOCs. The company used this manifest violation of the principle of natural justice as a ground to seek relief from the Patna High Court and got it. Instead of confirming its order asking the state government to rectify the error by appointing a separate person as Appellate Authority in compliance with the principle of natural justice and unmindful of the fact that the fact of violation of environmental laws has not been disputed, the High Court allowed the company to operate its plant. Although a new Appellate Authority has been appointed and the High Court asked the new Chairman, BSPCB to act after examining the complaint against it, the Board has failed to reiterate it's earlier decision. Dr. Devendra Kumar Shukla is the current Chairman, BSPCB and Neeraj Narayan is the Member Secretary, BSPCB. BSPCB was constituted 1974 under the provisions of the Water (prevention and Control of pollution) Act, 1974. Ashutosh is the Chairman, Bihar State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). Since April 2025, Harjot Kaur Bamhrah is Bihar's Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Environment and Forest.
At the Conference on Environmental and Occupational Health, Awadesh Narain Singh, Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council favored phasing of hazardous factories in public interest if they cause incurable but preventable diseases. He said, "buying asbestos is buying akin to buying cancer. I will get asbestos removed from my residence." He had announced that he would convene an environmental conference in the auditorium of the Bihar Legislative Council. He added, "the ache of asbestos hazards is worse than the ache of unemployment." His speech is available at: https://youtu.be/B9TbemRUkYM?si=cxalS9HS6dXgL6HS
In part 2, US EPA evaluated legacy uses and associated disposals of asbestos including chrysotile asbestos and five additional asbestos fiber types. US EPA determined that legacy uses of asbestos that result in asbestos exposure significantly contribute to the unreasonable risk presented by asbestos. However, US EPA’s risk finding does not mean that every person with asbestos-containing material in their house or school will suffer adverse health effects. If asbestos is present in the insulation in an older building and the asbestos-containing insulation is not disturbed, the asbestos does not present a risk to those living or working in or near the building.
In March 2024, US EPA had finalized the risk management rule for chrysotile asbestos. The rule prohibits ongoing uses of the only known form of asbestos currently imported, processed and distributed in the U.S., and will protect people from lung cancer, mesothelioma, ovarian cancer, laryngeal cancer and other health problems caused by asbestos exposure.
In March 2023, US EPA had released additional data related to the proposed risk management rule for public comment. These additional data concern chrysotile asbestos diaphragms used in the chlor-alkali industry and chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet gaskets used in chemical production.
In April 2022, US EPA had proposed a Ban of Ongoing Uses of Asbestos to protect American workers and families by prohibiting ongoing uses of the only known form of asbestos currently imported into the U.S. to address the unreasonable risk found to human health in the December 2020 chrysotile asbestos risk evaluation. This proposed rule was the first-ever risk management rule issued under the new process for evaluating and addressing the safety of existing chemicals under re-authorized Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
In December 2020, Final Risk Evaluation for Asbestos, Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos, found unreasonable risks to human health for ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos.
In April 2019, Restrictions on Discontinued Uses of Asbestos Rule was set in motion to ensure that asbestos products that are no longer on the market cannot return to commerce without the Agency evaluating them and putting in place any necessary restrictions or prohibiting use. The uses covered under this rule were not already prohibited under TSCA and could have returned to the market at any time.
It may be recalled that in 1989, US EPA had imposed partial ban on the manufacture, import, processing, and distribution of some asbestos-containing products. US EPA had also banned new uses of asbestos which prevent new asbestos products from entering the marketplace after August 25, 1989. These uses remain banned. The April 2019 rule does not provide a way for these uses to return to the marketplace.
In the latest development, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has formally filed a notice with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to withdraw its June 16, 2025 motion to pause litigation over the Asbestos Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos rule for an additional six months. The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO)—the only petitioner to oppose the motion—welcomes the Agency’s decision to move forward rather than delay.
The US EPA had sought the delay to reconsider the white chrysotile asbestos ban through a lengthy notice-and-comment rulemaking process that could have extended nearly three years or longer. ADAO opposed the motion, warning that further delays would create regulatory confusion, weaken protections, and place countless lives at continued risk.“The EPA’s sudden reversal is a quiet but clear acknowledgment that their plan to rethink the chrysotile ban created more chaos than clarity,” said Linda Reinstein, ADAO Co-Founder and President. “Their motion would have opened the door to years of delay, confusion, and increased risk to public health. ADAO stood alone in opposition—not because it was easy, but because it was necessary. When agencies falter, we don’t flinch. We will always fight to protect lives and to end the suffering, diseases, and deaths from asbestos.”
The US EPA’s July 7, 2025 filing confirms the Agency no longer intends to pursue changes to the rule at this time and proposes resuming litigation. The Court has been asked to set a new deadline of August 8, 2025, for determining next steps.
“The EPA’s withdrawal of its motion reflects a recognition that further delay would have undermined the integrity of the Toxic Substances Control Act—legislation that was amended in 2016 precisely because of EPA’s past failure to ban asbestos—and the urgent need to protect public health,” said Bob Sussman, counsel to ADAO, and a former EPA official. “ADAO’s strong opposition made clear that the rule should be defended—not dismantled.”
In India, a recent publication entitled "Working and living environment of the labour in the hazardous industry: Legal remedy for migrant workers and their families in the asbestos industry and construction industry" points out that almost all the hazardous industries employ migrant workers as contract and causal workers. They face hazards on a permanent basis but their job is of temporary nature in legal sense, which implies that they do not have the cover of social security. A significant number of them are undocumented workers. These workers and their families constitute a community which are perennially exposed to environmental and occupational exposures. Studies have inferred that lack of documentation and data is limiting any action to measure and address these exposure risks. The living and working conditions of migrant and non-migrant workers and their families make them vulnerable to exposures from hazardous asbestos industry and asbestos handling construction industry. In general, these workers do not have adequate legal, social and occupational protection. Their condition remains invisible to the law makers, law enforcers, planners, policy makers and public institutions concerned with public health despite the fact that WHO and ILO have recommended elimination of all kinds of asbestos, and some 70 countries have banned it.
It underlines the need for tracking diseases and deaths resulting from particular conditions known to be caused almost exclusively by environmental and occupational exposure, has been ignored for long. It has been estimated that enviro-occupational diseases kill six times more workers (migrants and non-migrants) than accidents. The data for migrants is yet to be disaggregated. The externalization of environmental and occupational health cost of these migrant workers makes hazardous industries like asbestos industry and construction industry, which are poorly regulated, quite profitable. Most of the fatal environmental and occupational diseases in these industries go unreported. This holds true for the asbestos industry and construction industry. Besides the asbestos based factories, the sites of construction industry contain asbestos in many building materials. Studies have pointed out that men and women who work in the hazardous industry have higher rates of environmental and occupational diseases than the general population.
It recommends effective preventive policy interventions to provide social security to workers, and their families who too get exposed to carcinogenic mineral fibers of asbestos.These workers end up exposing their family members when they carry the toxic fibers of asbestos on their bodies and clothes to their houses and habitations. This constitutes secondary exposure. The families of the migrant and non-migrant workers face constant risk of asbestos related diseases due to secondary exposure.
Studies with regard to Indian condition have shown that besides workers and consumers, wives, children, and other relatives of workers who handle asbestos or who encounter asbestos in their working environment, have higher rates of asbestos related diseases. These workers and their families are subject to poor and hazardous living and working conditions.
Like Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) which is dedicated to preventing asbestos exposure and eliminating all asbestos-caused diseases, Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI) is seeking criminal liability for companies and medico-legal remedy for victims along with India Asbestos Victims Association (IAVA).
