Pollution board cancels NOC to asbestos plant following CM’s intervention

Patna,(BiharTimes): Proving Sushil Kumar Modi’s defence of anti-environment hazardous asbestos plants (in his role as the then Bihar Environment Minister) as an indefensible and wrong act, the Bihar State Pollution Control Board (BSPCB) has cancelled the “No Objection Certificate” given to a company. This has been done in response to Bihar Chief Minister’s promise of “puncturing” hazardous asbestos factories in the fertile State. 

BSPCB’s order has been challenged in the Patna High Court which heard the matter on Friday. The case has been filed by the Utkal Asbestos Limited (UAL) Industries Ltd.

Meanwhile, Bhojpur District Magistrate has sent his report on the illegalities and irregularities committed by Utkal’s Asbestos plant in Giddha, which commenced without ant public hearing. Paryawaran Swasthya Suraksha Samiti, Koilwar has been campaigning against the asbestos plants of Bhojpur in Bihiya and Giddha.

In his reply in the State Assembly, the then deputy chief minister, Sushil Kumar Modi, who used to look after Environment & Forests portfolio too, has been misled into saying “Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 260/2004 filed to get asbestos and products made from it, held that there is no available credible study on the basis of which direct relationship of cancer disease with use of asbestos can be proved.”

Contrary to what the Bihar Environment Minister said, Supreme Court in its judgment in the above mentioned case, dated January 21, 2011 at paragraph 14 reads as under: 

In the matter relating to secondary exposure of workers to asbestos, though the grounds have been taken in the Writ Petition without any factual basis, again in the Rejoinder filed to the counter affidavit of respondent No.37, this issue has been raised by the petitioner in detail. In the earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Consumer Education and Research Centre (supra), hazards arising out of primary use of asbestos were primarily dealt with, but certainly secondary exposure also needs to be examined by the Court. In that judgment, the Court had noticed that it would, thus, be clear that diseases occurred wherever the exposure to the toxic or carcinogenic agent occurs, regardless of the country, type of industry, job title, job assignment or location of exposure. The diseases will follow the trail of the exposure and extend the chain of the carcinogenic risk beyond the work place. In that judgment, the Court had also directed that a review by the Union and the States shall be made after every ten years and also as and when the ILO gives directions in this behalf consistent with its recommendations or conventions. Admittedly, 15 years has expired since the issuance of the directions by this Court. The ILO also made certain specific directions vide its resolution of 2006 adopted in the 95th session of the International Labour Conference. It introduced a ban on all mining, manufacture, recycling and use of all forms of asbestos. As already noticed, serious doubts have been raised as to whether ‘controlled use’ can be effectively implemented even with regard to secondary exposure. These are circumstances which fully require the concerned quarters/authorities in the Government of India as well as the State Governments to examine/review the matter in accordance with law, objectively, to achieve the greater health care of the poor strata of the country who are directly or indirectly engaged in mining or manufacturing activities of asbestos and/or allied products.

The Supreme Court in its judgment dated January 21, 2011 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.260 of 2004 referred to its directions of January 27, 1995 in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 206 of 1986 that are required to be strictly adhered to including fresh International Labour Organisation (ILO) resolution on Asbestos dated June 14, 2006. 

According to Gopal Krishna of Toxics Watch Alliance (TWA), Ajit Kr Singh, Convener, Khet Bachao Jeevan Bachao Jan Sangharsh Committee (KBJBJC), Vaishali and Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate, Patna High Court, it is clear that both the Supreme Court and High Court have taken note of the resolution of WHO and ILO which seek elimination of all forms of asbestos.

The then Bihar Environment Minister was asked: Is it true that due to pollution happening due to asbestos factories, diseases like Mesothelioma, Asbestosis, lung cancer occur which is hazardous to health? 
He replied, “So far there has been no study in the country to establish this fact in a credible manner.”
The activists noted that the then Bihar Environment Minister should note that Sushma Swaraj has informed the Parliament, “the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) is of the view that long term exposure to any type of asbestos can lead to development of asbestosis, lung cancer and Mesothelioma” and referred to the need for complying with ILO directions as per Supreme Court order on August 13, 2003.

As Bihar Environment Minister Modi failed to note that Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) reports also categorically admits to the relationship between exposure to asbestos and diseases like mesothelioma, asbestosis and lung cancer.

Environmentalists asked as to how Modi remained blissfully unaware of the fact that the then Union Minister of Health and Family Welfare, Dr C P Thakur had informed Parliament that “Some of the countries in the world like France, UK, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Finland, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Austria, Poland and Saudi Arabia have banned the use of Asbestos” on August 22, 2001.
Modi, according to them, remained unaware although he is a member of Bihar Legislative Council, whose Chairman as well as Dr C P Thakur and Sushma Swaraj had different views on asbestos.

It must be noted that Secretary (Labour), Bihar was a member of a 11-member Working Group of a Planning Commission to prepare the Xth Five Year Plan on Occupational Safety and Health at the workplace under the Chairmanship of Vinod Vaish, Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide their order no. M-13015/9/2000-LEM/LP dated 27.04.2001. In its 159 page report dated September 2001, the Working Group noted 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 has recorded that various studies conducted by the Central Labour Institute have revealed substantial prevalence of occupational health disorders amongst the workers such as Asbestosis. The prevalence rate for Asbestosis was reported to be 7.25%. It has been acknowledged that " At the same time the number of occupational diseases reported is very meager"This makes it evident that early identification of occupational diseases is required. It has recommended that "To meet these requirements, measures are needed for diagnostic facilities and appropriate training in the field of occupational health. Occupational health hazards and diseases to the workmen employed in asbestos industries are of great concern to the industries, Govt. and the public. The Honorable Supreme Court of India in its judgement dated 27th January, 1995 relating to the Public Interest Litigation No.206 of 1986 had given several directions concerning the protective measures to be taken against the hazards of exposure to asbestos at workplaces such as mining and manufacturing activities. In the light of Supreme Court directives, it is proposed to launch a comprehensive programme for the protection of the health of the workers engaged in hazardous industries with adequate mechanisms for monitoring of work environment and diagnosis and control of disease."

It is noteworthy that Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar met the leaders of Ban Asbestos Network at his residence in Patna on February 13, 2013. He expressed outrage at the granting of “No Objection Certificate” by Bihar State Pollution Control Board (BSPCB) to hazardous asbestos based factories in fertile agricultural lands. 

He rang up Chairman, BSPCB and fixed an appointment for the villagers of Vaishali for February 14, 2013 and expressed his disapproval for asbestos based factories to him in front of the leaders of the Left parties and the villagers’ committee.

In India, mining of asbestos is technically banned but its import from other countries is yet to be banned. Trade in asbestos (dust & fibers) is also banned.

The dubious designs of the UAL company against the villagers and protesters to protect its hazardous plant at the cost of villagers’ health was condemned by the speakers who spoke at the demonstration. In a dubious move, the UAL has filed case no. 252/2012, 509/2012 and 510/2012 to silence the voice of public interest persons. This appears to be done to trap villagers into concocted cases as part of company's design to malign the movement of the KBJBJC. The memorandum sought the withdrawal of three fake cases lodged in Mahua Thana, Vaihsali.

Now that the construction of asbestos based factory in Vaishali is all set to be permanently stopped, the issue of three asbestos plants at Giddha and Bihiya in Bhojpur district has come to the forefront where protest has been going on for more than two years. Notably, the Giddha plant is situated behind a B Ed College. The villagers are protesting against this plant. In Bihiya, Tamil Nadu based Ramco Industries is operating two asbestos plants amidst protests from villagers although it has permission for only one. 

Meanwhile, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) has demanded that the State Assembly should be informed as to how it was misled by the then Environment Minister. TWA appeals to the Government to stop the hazardous asbestos based plants in Bhojpur as well as it has done in Muzaffarpur and Vaishali.