To
Dr Manmohan Singh,
Prime MInister
Union Ministry of Environment & Forests
Government of India
New Delhi
Subjcet-Violation of Environment Ministry's order dated 9th November, Supreme Court order, US Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), UN's Basel Convention & Stockholm Convention on Persistant Organic Pollutants
Sir,
Pursuant to my earlier communications with the Union Ministry of Environment & Forests, I got a reply dated 16 December, 2009 in response to my letter dated 10th December, 2009 regarding a dead US ship "Platinum -II (formely SS Oceanic, SS Independence)" raising certain issues relating to the fake ownership and fraudulent port of registry of the ships arriving at Alang for breaking purposes. Mr Subba Rao, Director, Hazardous Substances Management Division, Ministry of Environment & Forests wrote, "Since Ministry of Steel is the nodal Ministry for shipbreaking activities in the country, your representation has been forwarded to the Ministry of Steel (copy enclosed for ready reference)." I am bring to your attention because such forgery of documents has turned Alang, Gujarat into a factory of fake documents with huge security implications for our country.
I am an applicant in the Supreme Court in the Hazardous Wastes case Writ (Civil) No. 657 of 1995. I am aware that Inter-Ministerial Committee on Shipbreaking was constituted under the Supreme Court's order and I have been in corresponsence with it.
I strongly disagree with the submission made by Mr Subba Rao in his letter sent to the Ministry of Steel wherein he refers to aletter of Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) dated 1/12/2009 saying that it cannot be refloated and has been now defined 'wreck'. He notes that the GMB has informed that "as per the directions of DG Shipping, removal of wreck is the responsibility of the state authorties concerned. A decision is to be taken by the State Government regarding removing the wreck to avoid any untoward accident."
I submit that its once again a case of creating a fait accompli and a way to outwit the order of the environment ministry which had the explicit approval of the Hon'ble Union Environment Minister wherein the precautionary principle was invoked.
This blatant attempt to skirt US law, UN law, the Indian Supreme Court order and the the order of the Union Environment Minister must not go unchallenged. It’s time for the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Shipbreaking and Environment Ministry to stand strong against these corporate veils created by the shipping companies and in support of environmental justice. The US toxic ship must be sent back as has been established in a similar case of Le Clemenceau, the French ship.
The Union Environment Ministry's order http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/Office%20Memorandum_ship.pdf had asked GMB to probe the dubious ownership of the ship. So far the same has not been done.
I wish to reiterate that the arrival of the dead US ship Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) violates the UN's Basel Convention on on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal to which India is a Party. Under that United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) treaty, India is not allowed to receive hazardous waste from the USA. Nor can it receive hazardous waste from any foreign source without prior notification of arrival and consent from the Indian government. No such notification or consent was provided in advance of the sudden arrival of the toxic ship. Further, the ship's arrival violated the Supreme Court of India’s order of 14th October 2003 and 6th September 2007, which calls for the pre-cleaning of ships of all toxic substances prior to importation.
The incident is reminiscent of the infamous export of the French Aircraft Carrier Le Clemenceau, which in 2006 was exported to India for breaking from France. French courts finally realized the export was a violation of the Basel Convention and demanded the return of the ship.
The arrival of Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) off the Gujarat beaches makes India an international crime scene, with the US Maritime Administration (MARAD) abetting such crimes. The last time something like this happened, the authorities of the exporting country called the ship back and took responsibility. As you are aware I had called on the authorities of India and the US to do nothing less. The Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) now rests at anchorage off Gopnath point approximately 40 nautical miles from the Alang coast while Indian state authorities decide her fate. GMS denies any ownership of the vessel or of the mystery firm Platinum Investment Services Corp.
The ship had violated U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Exporting PCB material from the US is a violation of the Toxics Substances Control Act. Besides the ship entered Indian waters in violation of the Basel Convention (of which US is a non-party) and UN's Stockholm Convention on Persistant Organic Pollutants.
In its order on US Ship "Platinum -II (formerly SS Oceanic, SS Independence) dated 9th November, 2009, the Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/Office%20Memorandum_ship.pdf has cited the precautionary principle and the fact that the ship not only appeared to arrive in India with false documentation but also the fact that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took legal action against Global Marketing Services (GMS) and sister company Global Shipping LLC (GSL), both companies set up by the notorious ship breaker Mr. Anil Sharma, for exporting the ship from San Francisco, California in 2008 in violation of the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The Platinum II arrived in Indian waters for scrapping on 8 October 2009 with papers saying its flag was that of the Republic of Kiribati and that it was owned by Platinum Investment Services of Monrovia, Liberia. We later received official confirmation from the Operations Manager at Kiribati Ship Registry, Liau Siew Leng, that the registration was a forgery. The Kiribati Ministry of Communications, Transport & Tourism Development Office further confirmed the falsified documents. The fraudulent ship registry is likely a violation of maritime law of the United States, India and Kiribati.
The United States Maritime Administration (MARAD) allowed the vessel to be sold to a non-citizen in April 2008 under the blanket approval in 46 C.F.R. 221.13. This general approval however did not grant approval for the sale of the vessel for scrapping in a foreign country. The vessel remains under the US flag and cannot be scrapped without MARAD’s approval. It is suspected that avoidance of US government scrutiny and denial of reflag permission for the purposes of scrapping is the rationale for the falsified re-registration.
I am still hopeful that the violations of Environment Ministry's order dated 9th November, Supreme Court order, US Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Basel Convention & Stockholm Convention on Persistant Organic Pollutants would not be allowed and a strong message would be sent to those India's environmental borders with impunity due to the indulgence of some officails. I feel that Platinum II provides your ministry, an oppurtunity to set matters right else we would end opening the flood gates of all the rotten ships of the developed countries like US. I am really hopeful that there would be no need to take matter to the apex court.
Yours faithfully
Gopal Krishna
Indian Platform on Shipbreaking/ToxicsWatch
New Delhi
Mb: 9818089660
E-mail: krishnagreen@gmail.com
Web:imowatch.blogpsot.com
P.S: I wish to place on record my disagreement with the claims made in a written reply by the Ministry of Steel in the Rajya Sabha on December 11, 2009 saying, "Ship breaking activities are undertaken at Alang and the operational procedures are being followed as per the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of 17.02.2006, a Central Technical Committee (CTC) under the Chairmanship of Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests was set up to regulate various activities of ship breaking industries. The CTC gave its recommendations touching all aspects of ship breaking. The recommendations are operative by virtue of the Supreme Court Order dated 6.9.2007." The fact is that almost all the relevant orders of the court has been violated. Most starkly, the apex court order of 2007 states, "It is desirable that the Government of India shall formulate a comprehensive Code incorporating the recommendations and the same has to be operative until the concerned Statutes are amended to be in line with the recommendations." But so far the court's order even with regard to the Code has not been complied with although more than two years have passed since the judgement dated 6.9.2007.
The alarming rise in the rate of reported death of workers in Alang is contrary to the Ministry's claim that "Based on the report received from Gujarat Maritime Board, it is stated that at present, there are around 17000-18000 trained labours engaged in ship recycling at Alang by the Ship Recyclers." The MInister's statement is inconsistent with what has routinely appeared even in the local and national media. In 2009 alone, too many fatal accidents have occurred. It is estimated that 3-5 workers die every month either from occupational disease from shipborne hazardous substances like asbestos or PCBs, or from explosions, fires and other accidents. The primary reason why workers die in a regular manner is that the shipowners of the developed countries like US and from Europe have escaped the decontamination cost of obsolete ships with impunity due to the active connivance of Indian officials. Since 1983, the shipbreakers have blindly profited from such a situation at the cost of workers' life, villagers health and toxic pollution.
On 4 August, 2009, 6 workers perished in a tanker fire at the yards in Alang beach that took 6 hours to extinguish. These six labourers were burnt alive in an engine room at Alang ship breaking yard on on plot no. 24 at Alang beach despite the fact that UN’s International Maritime Organisation has certified Alang beach as a safe place for hazardous industrial activity like ship dismantling. The incident took place when some workers of Alang Auto & General Engineering Co. (P) Ltd were cutting down the engine portion of ship ‘M S Jesica’ in the world’s largest ship scrapping yard. The fire officials took almost three hours to douse the blaze. The exact cause of fire is yet to be ascertained. The company is owned by Udai Agarwal and Abhinav Kumar. Earlier, two fatal accidents have been reported in May and June 2009. The earlier accident that occurred on the 1st June, 2009 on Plot 15 of the ship-breaking yard involved a labourer identified as Ayodhyasingh Rajput. Such fatal accident occurred at Plot 24 D in May, 2009 as well. Similar accidents were reported in earlier and later months as well. Each time 'negliegence' is cited as reason and the matter is dismissed.
The revealed cruel passivity in its response to the deaths of migrant workers in Alang so far must be done away and more sensitivity should be used in dealing with victims of environmental and occupational hazards. It has not ascertained the plight of migrant workers working and their living environment at Alang beach and also to explore whether the industrial activity can be taken off the beach. The Supreme Court order of October 14, 2003 and September 6, 2007 led to the creation of an Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) comprising Ministry of Surface Transport, Ministry of Steel, Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Environment and Forests was constituted and its continuance. Para 58 of the 2003 order and para 8 of 2007 order reads, "According to the recommendation of HPC, the Iner-Ministerial Committee (IMC) comprising Ministry of Surface Transport, Ministry of -Steel, Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Environment should be constituted with the involvement of Labour and Environment organizations and representatives of the ship breaking Industries." Involvement of labour and environment organisations in compliance of the court's specific order has not been ensured as was required as per the order.
The shipping industry which dominates the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has adopted a regressive treaty on shipbreaking/ship recycling in May 2009. This effort of IMO has been condemned by the civil society groups as an industry “greenwash” of the horrific status quo. IMO officials have even called the shipbreaking beaches in Alang where workers die routinely, as being “very satisfying.” Contrary to the claims of the IMO, the brutal death of these workers stand as a stark testament to the unsuitability of using ocean beaches for the safe and sound recycling of ships.“Such practices would never be allowed in the UK and it should not be allowed in any country in the world. Shipping companies like Norwegian Cruise LIner/ Star Cruise and others must be made liable and accountable for decontamination costs which they are attempting to escape for good. They should not be allowed to make the laws by which they will insulate themselves.
The continued embargo on both national and international media which stops journalists and researchers from entering the “beaches” is meant to hide these “grave yards” of workers and coastal communities from public attention. It is an unpardonable colossal failure of IMO to allow the ship dismantling/recycling industry to contaminate the fragile coastal environment like beaches.” In Europe, government owned ships are being broken only in sophisticated yards located in developed countries while commercial vessels are still too often exported even when such exports violate the law. Just this year, the Able UK shipyard, received the French Aircraft Carrier Clemenceau after French courts ruled that export to India was illegal under the Waste Shipment Regulation. It took over 18 months to decontaminate the ship.
Enviro-occupational hazards induced injury and disease happen in a routine manner in Alang. Union Environment Secretary headed Supreme Court-appointed committee in its report has revealed that the fatal accident rate in Alang is in the range of 2 per 1000 as opposed to 0.34 per 1000 in the mining industry (which is considered worst in the industrial sector). Besides accidents ship-breakers who employ workers on contract never monitor the impact on their health of the toxic substances they are exposed to. Given the lack of monitoring/medical survelliance or tracking of workers who are all migrant workers, its very difficult to ascertain the real health impact on the workers, which we belive to be quite grave. A occupational health survey conducted by the National Institute of Occupational Health of workers at the ship-breaking yards in Alang found that 16 % of the workers examined were exposed to asbestos that leads to incurable lung cancer and other diseases. A recent Central Pollution Control Board study recommends that workers who handle asbestos must be permanentlt employed but it had not been implemented either in the shipbreaking industry or in the asbestos industry.
With regard to rampant manufacturing and cooking of documents underway in Alang, the papers of most of these more than 700 ships that entered Indian waters must be investigated and the likelihood of they having violated both the international and national laws ought to be looked into. Professor M.G.K. Menon, the distinguished scientist who headed the Supreme Court's High Powered Committee on Management of Hazardous Wastes had written to the Chief Justice of India "in a personal capacity as someone who is interested as a citizen of the country." He emphasised that the obsolete ships be "properly decontaminated by the ship-owner prior to the breaking in the country of export." He wrote: "Any effort to dilute the Supreme Court orders of October 14, 2003 to try to remove the concept of prior decontamination would be a measure going against the interests of workers in the ship-breaking yards as also a violation of the Basel Convention."
The case of fake documents in the case of dead US ship Platinum II (SS Independence, SS OCeanic) reveals the hollowness of Union Steel Ministry's claim that "Pursuant to the directives of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a series of measures have been taken for attenuating the hazards of ship breaking and for improving the working conditions at ship-breaking yards. Consequently, detailed protocols and procedures have been put in place for scrutinizing ships arriving for breaking and for handling and disposing of hazardous materials and wastes. The provisions of existing rules take adequate care of the hazards of ship breaking. Further, as and when any shortcomings are noticed, remedial steps are taken." Besides civil society groups, even industry has voiced its concerns. Notably, "The government has rejected this ship for fabrication of document. It's the first time that the this issue has come up though it is rampant -- ships are brought in without clear identification of the owners and the port of registration. It's important to correct this for the security of the country and the shipbreakers," said Pravin Nagarsheth, president of the Iron Steel Scrap and Shipbreaking Association of India as reported in The Times of India (10 November 2009).
In the light of the above, the government must ensure that economics of ship-breaking/recycling is not be built on the destroyed lives of those who dismantle the ships. IMO Convention on ship recycling is anti-worker and anti-environment and is contrary to Prof. Menon's sane advice and our Supreme Court's order. Therefore, to protect the interest of the workers and the Alang beach must be protected by refusing to support the regressive text the IMO treaty.
29/12/2009
Toxic US Vessel Platinum II Violates US, UN & Indian Laws
Note: The supposed Greek owner of Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) is Mr. Dimitris Koukas, President/Director of Platinum Investment Services, and also Managing Director of Optima Shipbrokers Ltd. Athens, Greece
Office +30 210-9658212, Mobile +30 6932403139 He is also listed as a business “reference” on GMS’ website: http://www.gmsinc.net/gms/references.php
To
Focal Point,
Basel Convention,
Director,
Hazardous Substances Management Division,
Union Ministry of Environment & Forests
Subjcet-Violation of Environment Ministry's order dated 9th November, Supreme Court order, US Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Basel Convention & Stockholm Convention on Persistant Organic Pollutants
Dear Dr Saroj,
Pursuant to our earlier communications, this is to inform you that few days back I got a letter from Mr M Subba Rao, Director, Union Ministry of Environment & Forests dated 16 December, 2009 in response to my letter dated 10th December, 2009 "regarding "Platinum -II" raising certain issues relating to the ownership and port of registry of the ships arriving at Alang for breaking purposes." He wrote, "Since Ministry of Steel is the nodal Ministry for shipbreaking activities in the country, your representation has been forwarded to the Ministry of Steel (copy enclosed for ready reference)."
I am aware that Inter-Ministerial Committee on Shipbreaking was constituted under the Supreme Court's order and I have been in corresponsence with it. I disagree with the submission made by Mr Subba Rao in his letter sent to the Ministry of Steel wherein he refers to aletter of Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) dated 1/12/2009 saying that it cannot be refloated and has been now defined 'wreck'. He notes that the GMB has informed that "as per the directions of DG Shipping, removal of wreck is the responsibility of the state authorties concerned. A decision is to be taken by the State Government regarding removing the wreck to avoid any untoward accident." I submit that its once again a case of creating a fait accompli and a way to outwit the order of the environment ministry which had the explicit approval of the Hon'ble Union Environment Minister wherein the precautionary principle was invoked.
This blatant attempt to skirt US law, UN law, the Indian Supreme Court order and the the order of the Union Environment Minister must not go unchallenged. It’s time for the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Shipbreaking and Environment Ministry to stand strong against these corporate veils created by the shipping companies and in support of environmental justice. The US toxic ship must be sent back as has been established in a similar case of Le Clemenceau, the French ship.
The Union Environment Ministry's order http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/Office%20Memorandum_ship.pdf under your signature had asked GMB to probe the dubious ownership of the ship. So far the same has not been done. I wish to inform you that I just got to know that Shiv Ship Breaking Company is reported to be the new player in the case of US dead ship Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence). This new company in question works at Plot No. 36 in Alang with its office in S/10, Surya Darshan Complex, Rubber Factory Circle, Bhavnagar-364 001. Its contact numbers are as under: Tele: (O) (0278)2511211, (W) (02842)235510 (R) 2428397, Fax: 2426050, E-Mail :shivship@sancharonline.net, Contact Person: Hareshbhai Parmar (9825018111) & Rameshbhai (9825205133).
I wish to reiterate that the arrival of the dead US ship Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) violates the UN's Basel Convention on on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal to which India is a Party. Under that United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) treaty, India is not allowed to receive hazardous waste from the USA. Nor can it receive hazardous waste from any foreign source without prior notification of arrival and consent from the Indian government. No such notification or consent was provided in advance of the sudden arrival of the toxic ship. Further, the ship's arrival violated the Supreme Court of India’s order of 14th October 2003 and 6th September 2007, which calls for the pre-cleaning of ships of all toxic substances prior to importation.
The incident is reminiscent of the infamous export of the French Aircraft Carrier Le Clemenceau, which in 2006 was exported to India for breaking from France. French courts finally realized the export was a violation of the Basel Convention and demanded the return of the ship.
The arrival of Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) off the Gujarat beaches makes India an international crime scene, with the US Maritime Administration (MARAD) abetting such crimes. The last time something like this happened, the authorities of the exporting country called the ship back and took responsibility. As you are aware I had called on the authorities of India and the US to do nothing less. The Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) now rests at anchorage off Gopnath point approximately 40 nautical miles from the Alang coast while Indian state authorities decide her fate. GMS denies any ownership of the vessel or of the mystery firm Platinum Investment Services Corp.
The ship had violated U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Exporting PCB material from the US is a violation of the Toxics Substances Control Act. Besides the ship entered Indian waters in violation of the Basel Convention (of which US is a non-party) and UN's Stockholm Convention on Persistant Organic Pollutants.
In its order on US Ship "Platinum -II (formerly SS Oceanic, SS Independence) dated 9th November, 2009, the Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/Office%20Memorandum_ship.pdf has cited the precautionary principle and the fact that the ship not only appeared to arrive in India with false documentation but also the fact that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took legal action against Global Marketing Services (GMS) and sister company Global Shipping LLC (GSL), both companies set up by the notorious ship breaker Mr. Anil Sharma, for exporting the ship from San Francisco, California in 2008 in violation of the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The Platinum II arrived in Indian waters for scrapping on 8 October 2009 with papers saying its flag was that of the Republic of Kiribati and that it was owned by Platinum Investment Services of Monrovia, Liberia. We later received official confirmation from the Operations Manager at Kiribati Ship Registry, Liau Siew Leng, that the registration was a forgery. The Kiribati Ministry of Communications, Transport & Tourism Development Office further confirmed the falsified documents. The fraudulent ship registry is likely a violation of maritime law of the United States, India and Kiribati.
The United States Maritime Administration (MARAD) allowed the vessel to be sold to a non-citizen in April 2008 under the blanket approval in 46 C.F.R. 221.13. This general approval however did not grant approval for the sale of the vessel for scrapping in a foreign country. The vessel remains under the US flag and cannot be scrapped without MARAD’s approval. It is suspected that avoidance of US government scrutiny and denial of reflag permission for the purposes of scrapping is the rationale for the falsified re-registration.
I am still hopeful that the violations of Environment Ministry's order dated 9th November, Supreme Court order, US Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Basel Convention & Stockholm Convention on Persistant Organic Pollutants would not be allowed and a strong message would be sent to those India's environmental borders with impunity due to the indulgence of some officails. I feel that Platinum II provides your ministry, an oppurtunity to set matters right else we would end opening the flood gates of all the rotten ships of the developed countries like US. I am really hopeful that there would be no need to take matter to the apex court.
Yours faithfully
Gopal Krishna
Indian Platform on Shipbreaking
New Delhi
Mb: 9818089660
E-mail: krishnagreen@gmail.com
P.S: I wish to place on record my disagreement with the claims made in a written reply by the Ministry of Steel in the Rajya Sabha on December 11, 2009 saying, "Ship breaking activities are undertaken at Alang and the operational procedures are being followed as per the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of 17.02.2006, a Central Technical Committee (CTC) under the Chairmanship of Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests was set up to regulate various activities of ship breaking industries. The CTC gave its recommendations touching all aspects of ship breaking. The recommendations are operative by virtue of the Supreme Court Order dated 6.9.2007." The fact is that almost all the relevant orders of the court has been violated. Most starkly, the apex court order of 2007 states, "It is desirable that the Government of India shall formulate a comprehensive Code incorporating the recommendations and the same has to be operative until the concerned Statutes are amended to be in line with the recommendations." But so far the court's order even with regard to the Code has not been complied with although more than two years have passed since the judgement dated 6.9.2007.
The alarming rise in the rate of reported death of workers in Alang is contrary to the Ministry's claim that "Based on the report received from Gujarat Maritime Board, it is stated that at present, there are around 17000-18000 trained labours engaged in ship recycling at Alang by the Ship Recyclers." The MInister's statement is inconsistent with what has routinely appeared even in the local and national media. In 2009 alone, too many fatal accidents have occurred. It is estimated that 3-5 workers die every month either from occupational disease from shipborne hazardous substances like asbestos or PCBs, or from explosions, fires and other accidents. The primary reason why workers die in
a regular manner is that the shipowners of the developed countries like US and from Europe have escaped the decontamination cost of obsolete ships with impunity due to the active connivance of Indian officials. Since 1983, the shipbreakers have blindly profited from such a situation at the cost of workers' life, villagers health and toxic pollution.
On 4 August, 2009, 6 workers perished in a tanker fire at the yards in Alang beach that took 6 hours to extinguish. These six labourers were burnt alive in an engine room at Alang ship breaking yard on on plot no. 24 at Alang beach despite the fact that UN’s International Maritime Organisation has certified Alang beach as a safe place for hazardous industrial activity like ship dismantling. The incident took place when some workers of Alang Auto & General Engineering Co. (P) Ltd were cutting down the engine portion of ship ‘M S Jesica’ in the world’s largest ship scrapping yard. The fire officials took almost three hours to douse the blaze. The exact cause of fire is yet to be ascertained. The company is owned by Udai Agarwal and Abhinav Kumar. Earlier, two fatal accidents have been reported in May and June 2009. The earlier accident that occurred on the 1st June, 2009 on Plot 15 of the ship-breaking yard involved a labourer identified as Ayodhyasingh Rajput. Such fatal accident occurred at Plot 24 D in May, 2009 as well. Similar accidents were reported in earlier and later months as well. Each time 'negliegence' is cited as reason and the matter is dismissed.
The revealed cruel passivity in its response to the deaths of migrant workers in Alang so far must be done away and more sensitivity should be used in dealing with victims of environmental and occupational hazards. It has not ascertained the plight of migrant workers working and their living environment at Alang beach and also to explore whether the industrial activity can be taken off the beach. The Supreme Court order of October 14, 2003 and September 6, 2007 led to the creation of an Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) comprising Ministry of Surface Transport, Ministry of Steel, Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Environment and Forests was constituted and its continuance. Para 58 of the 2003 order and para 8 of 2007 order reads, "According to the recommendation of HPC, the Iner-Ministerial Committee (IMC) comprising Ministry of Surface Transport, Ministry of -Steel, Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Environment should be constituted with the involvement of Labour and Environment organizations and representatives of the ship breaking Industries." Involvement of labour and environment organisations in compliance of the court's specific order has not been ensured as was required as per the order.
The shipping industry which dominates the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has adopted a regressive treaty on shipbreaking/ship recycling in May 2009. This effort of IMO has been condemned by the civil society groups as an industry “greenwash” of the horrific status quo. IMO officials have even called the shipbreaking beaches in Alang where workers die routinely, as being “very satisfying.” Contrary to the claims of the IMO, the brutal death of these workers stand as a stark testament to the unsuitability of using ocean beaches for the safe and sound recycling of ships.“Such practices would never be allowed in the UK and it should not be allowed in any country in the world. Shipping companies like Norwegian Cruise LIner/ Star Cruise and others must be made liable and accountable for decontamination costs which they are attempting to escape for good. They should not be allowed to make the laws by which they will insulate themselves.
The continued embargo on both national and international media which stops journalists and researchers from entering the “beaches” is meant to hide these “grave yards” of workers and coastal communities from public attention. It is an unpardonable colossal failure of IMO to allow the ship dismantling/recycling industry to contaminate the
fragile coastal environment like beaches.” In Europe, government owned ships are being broken only in sophisticated yards located in developed countries while commercial
vessels are still too often exported even when such exports violate the law. Just this year, the Able UK shipyard, received the French Aircraft Carrier Clemenceau after French courts ruled that export to India was illegal under the Waste Shipment Regulation. It took over 18 months to decontaminate the ship.
Enviro-occupational hazards induced injury and disease happen in a routine manner in Alang. Union Environment Secretary headed Supreme Court-appointed committee in its report has revealed that the fatal accident rate in Alang is in the range of 2 per 1000 as opposed to 0.34 per 1000 in the mining industry (which is considered worst in the industrial sector). Besides accidents ship-breakers who employ workers on contract never monitor the impact on their health of the toxic substances they are exposed to. Given the lack of monitoring/medical survelliance or tracking of workers who are all migrant workers, its very difficult to ascertain the real health impact on the workers, which we belive to be quite grave. A occupational health survey conducted by the National Institute of Occupational Health of workers at the ship-breaking yards in Alang found that 16 % of the workers examined were exposed to asbestos that leads to incurable lung cancer and other diseases. A recent Central Pollution Control Board study recommends that workers who handle asbestos must be permanentlt employed but it had not been implemented either in the shipbreaking industry or in the asbestos industry.
With regard to rampant manufacturing and cooking of documents underway in Alang, the papers of most of these more than 700 ships that entered Indian waters must be investigated and the likelihood of they having violated both the international and national laws ought to be looked into. Professor M.G.K. Menon, the distinguished scientist who headed the Supreme Court's High Powered Committee on Management of Hazardous Wastes had written to the Chief Justice of India "in a personal capacity as someone who is interested as a citizen of the country." He emphasised that the obsolete ships be "properly decontaminated by the ship-owner prior to the breaking in the country of export." He wrote: "Any effort to dilute the Supreme Court orders of October 14, 2003 to try to remove the concept of prior decontamination would be a measure going against the interests of workers in the ship-breaking yards as also a violation of the Basel Convention."
The case of fake documents in the case of dead US ship Platinum II (SS Independence, SS OCeanic) reveals the hollowness of Union Steel Ministry's claim that "Pursuant to the directives of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a series of measures have been taken for attenuating the hazards of ship breaking and for improving the working conditions at ship-breaking yards. Consequently, detailed protocols and procedures have been put in place for scrutinizing ships arriving for breaking and for handling and disposing of hazardous materials and wastes. The provisions of existing rules take adequate care of the hazards of ship breaking. Further, as and when any shortcomings are noticed, remedial steps are taken." Besides civil society groups, even industry has voiced its concerns. Notably, "The government has rejected this ship for fabrication of document. It's the first time that the this issue has come up though it is rampant -- ships are brought in without clear identification of the owners and the port of registration. It's important to correct this for the security of the country and the shipbreakers," said Pravin Nagarsheth, president of the Iron Steel Scrap and Shipbreaking Association of India as reported in The Times of India (10 November 2009).
In the light of the above, the government must ensure that economics of ship-breaking/recycling is not be built on the destroyed lives of those who dismantle the ships. IMO Convention on ship recycling is anti-worker and anti-environment and is contrary to Prof. Menon's sane advice and our Supreme Court's order. Therefore, to protect the interest of the workers and the Alang beach must be protected by refusing to support the regressive text the IMO treaty.
Office +30 210-9658212, Mobile +30 6932403139 He is also listed as a business “reference” on GMS’ website: http://www.gmsinc.net/gms/references.php
To
Focal Point,
Basel Convention,
Director,
Hazardous Substances Management Division,
Union Ministry of Environment & Forests
Subjcet-Violation of Environment Ministry's order dated 9th November, Supreme Court order, US Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Basel Convention & Stockholm Convention on Persistant Organic Pollutants
Dear Dr Saroj,
Pursuant to our earlier communications, this is to inform you that few days back I got a letter from Mr M Subba Rao, Director, Union Ministry of Environment & Forests dated 16 December, 2009 in response to my letter dated 10th December, 2009 "regarding "Platinum -II" raising certain issues relating to the ownership and port of registry of the ships arriving at Alang for breaking purposes." He wrote, "Since Ministry of Steel is the nodal Ministry for shipbreaking activities in the country, your representation has been forwarded to the Ministry of Steel (copy enclosed for ready reference)."
I am aware that Inter-Ministerial Committee on Shipbreaking was constituted under the Supreme Court's order and I have been in corresponsence with it. I disagree with the submission made by Mr Subba Rao in his letter sent to the Ministry of Steel wherein he refers to aletter of Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) dated 1/12/2009 saying that it cannot be refloated and has been now defined 'wreck'. He notes that the GMB has informed that "as per the directions of DG Shipping, removal of wreck is the responsibility of the state authorties concerned. A decision is to be taken by the State Government regarding removing the wreck to avoid any untoward accident." I submit that its once again a case of creating a fait accompli and a way to outwit the order of the environment ministry which had the explicit approval of the Hon'ble Union Environment Minister wherein the precautionary principle was invoked.
This blatant attempt to skirt US law, UN law, the Indian Supreme Court order and the the order of the Union Environment Minister must not go unchallenged. It’s time for the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Shipbreaking and Environment Ministry to stand strong against these corporate veils created by the shipping companies and in support of environmental justice. The US toxic ship must be sent back as has been established in a similar case of Le Clemenceau, the French ship.
The Union Environment Ministry's order http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/Office%20Memorandum_ship.pdf under your signature had asked GMB to probe the dubious ownership of the ship. So far the same has not been done. I wish to inform you that I just got to know that Shiv Ship Breaking Company is reported to be the new player in the case of US dead ship Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence). This new company in question works at Plot No. 36 in Alang with its office in S/10, Surya Darshan Complex, Rubber Factory Circle, Bhavnagar-364 001. Its contact numbers are as under: Tele: (O) (0278)2511211, (W) (02842)235510 (R) 2428397, Fax: 2426050, E-Mail :shivship@sancharonline.net, Contact Person: Hareshbhai Parmar (9825018111) & Rameshbhai (9825205133).
I wish to reiterate that the arrival of the dead US ship Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) violates the UN's Basel Convention on on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal to which India is a Party. Under that United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) treaty, India is not allowed to receive hazardous waste from the USA. Nor can it receive hazardous waste from any foreign source without prior notification of arrival and consent from the Indian government. No such notification or consent was provided in advance of the sudden arrival of the toxic ship. Further, the ship's arrival violated the Supreme Court of India’s order of 14th October 2003 and 6th September 2007, which calls for the pre-cleaning of ships of all toxic substances prior to importation.
The incident is reminiscent of the infamous export of the French Aircraft Carrier Le Clemenceau, which in 2006 was exported to India for breaking from France. French courts finally realized the export was a violation of the Basel Convention and demanded the return of the ship.
The arrival of Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) off the Gujarat beaches makes India an international crime scene, with the US Maritime Administration (MARAD) abetting such crimes. The last time something like this happened, the authorities of the exporting country called the ship back and took responsibility. As you are aware I had called on the authorities of India and the US to do nothing less. The Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) now rests at anchorage off Gopnath point approximately 40 nautical miles from the Alang coast while Indian state authorities decide her fate. GMS denies any ownership of the vessel or of the mystery firm Platinum Investment Services Corp.
The ship had violated U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Exporting PCB material from the US is a violation of the Toxics Substances Control Act. Besides the ship entered Indian waters in violation of the Basel Convention (of which US is a non-party) and UN's Stockholm Convention on Persistant Organic Pollutants.
In its order on US Ship "Platinum -II (formerly SS Oceanic, SS Independence) dated 9th November, 2009, the Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/Office%20Memorandum_ship.pdf has cited the precautionary principle and the fact that the ship not only appeared to arrive in India with false documentation but also the fact that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took legal action against Global Marketing Services (GMS) and sister company Global Shipping LLC (GSL), both companies set up by the notorious ship breaker Mr. Anil Sharma, for exporting the ship from San Francisco, California in 2008 in violation of the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The Platinum II arrived in Indian waters for scrapping on 8 October 2009 with papers saying its flag was that of the Republic of Kiribati and that it was owned by Platinum Investment Services of Monrovia, Liberia. We later received official confirmation from the Operations Manager at Kiribati Ship Registry, Liau Siew Leng, that the registration was a forgery. The Kiribati Ministry of Communications, Transport & Tourism Development Office further confirmed the falsified documents. The fraudulent ship registry is likely a violation of maritime law of the United States, India and Kiribati.
The United States Maritime Administration (MARAD) allowed the vessel to be sold to a non-citizen in April 2008 under the blanket approval in 46 C.F.R. 221.13. This general approval however did not grant approval for the sale of the vessel for scrapping in a foreign country. The vessel remains under the US flag and cannot be scrapped without MARAD’s approval. It is suspected that avoidance of US government scrutiny and denial of reflag permission for the purposes of scrapping is the rationale for the falsified re-registration.
I am still hopeful that the violations of Environment Ministry's order dated 9th November, Supreme Court order, US Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Basel Convention & Stockholm Convention on Persistant Organic Pollutants would not be allowed and a strong message would be sent to those India's environmental borders with impunity due to the indulgence of some officails. I feel that Platinum II provides your ministry, an oppurtunity to set matters right else we would end opening the flood gates of all the rotten ships of the developed countries like US. I am really hopeful that there would be no need to take matter to the apex court.
Yours faithfully
Gopal Krishna
Indian Platform on Shipbreaking
New Delhi
Mb: 9818089660
E-mail: krishnagreen@gmail.com
P.S: I wish to place on record my disagreement with the claims made in a written reply by the Ministry of Steel in the Rajya Sabha on December 11, 2009 saying, "Ship breaking activities are undertaken at Alang and the operational procedures are being followed as per the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of 17.02.2006, a Central Technical Committee (CTC) under the Chairmanship of Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests was set up to regulate various activities of ship breaking industries. The CTC gave its recommendations touching all aspects of ship breaking. The recommendations are operative by virtue of the Supreme Court Order dated 6.9.2007." The fact is that almost all the relevant orders of the court has been violated. Most starkly, the apex court order of 2007 states, "It is desirable that the Government of India shall formulate a comprehensive Code incorporating the recommendations and the same has to be operative until the concerned Statutes are amended to be in line with the recommendations." But so far the court's order even with regard to the Code has not been complied with although more than two years have passed since the judgement dated 6.9.2007.
The alarming rise in the rate of reported death of workers in Alang is contrary to the Ministry's claim that "Based on the report received from Gujarat Maritime Board, it is stated that at present, there are around 17000-18000 trained labours engaged in ship recycling at Alang by the Ship Recyclers." The MInister's statement is inconsistent with what has routinely appeared even in the local and national media. In 2009 alone, too many fatal accidents have occurred. It is estimated that 3-5 workers die every month either from occupational disease from shipborne hazardous substances like asbestos or PCBs, or from explosions, fires and other accidents. The primary reason why workers die in
a regular manner is that the shipowners of the developed countries like US and from Europe have escaped the decontamination cost of obsolete ships with impunity due to the active connivance of Indian officials. Since 1983, the shipbreakers have blindly profited from such a situation at the cost of workers' life, villagers health and toxic pollution.
On 4 August, 2009, 6 workers perished in a tanker fire at the yards in Alang beach that took 6 hours to extinguish. These six labourers were burnt alive in an engine room at Alang ship breaking yard on on plot no. 24 at Alang beach despite the fact that UN’s International Maritime Organisation has certified Alang beach as a safe place for hazardous industrial activity like ship dismantling. The incident took place when some workers of Alang Auto & General Engineering Co. (P) Ltd were cutting down the engine portion of ship ‘M S Jesica’ in the world’s largest ship scrapping yard. The fire officials took almost three hours to douse the blaze. The exact cause of fire is yet to be ascertained. The company is owned by Udai Agarwal and Abhinav Kumar. Earlier, two fatal accidents have been reported in May and June 2009. The earlier accident that occurred on the 1st June, 2009 on Plot 15 of the ship-breaking yard involved a labourer identified as Ayodhyasingh Rajput. Such fatal accident occurred at Plot 24 D in May, 2009 as well. Similar accidents were reported in earlier and later months as well. Each time 'negliegence' is cited as reason and the matter is dismissed.
The revealed cruel passivity in its response to the deaths of migrant workers in Alang so far must be done away and more sensitivity should be used in dealing with victims of environmental and occupational hazards. It has not ascertained the plight of migrant workers working and their living environment at Alang beach and also to explore whether the industrial activity can be taken off the beach. The Supreme Court order of October 14, 2003 and September 6, 2007 led to the creation of an Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) comprising Ministry of Surface Transport, Ministry of Steel, Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Environment and Forests was constituted and its continuance. Para 58 of the 2003 order and para 8 of 2007 order reads, "According to the recommendation of HPC, the Iner-Ministerial Committee (IMC) comprising Ministry of Surface Transport, Ministry of -Steel, Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Environment should be constituted with the involvement of Labour and Environment organizations and representatives of the ship breaking Industries." Involvement of labour and environment organisations in compliance of the court's specific order has not been ensured as was required as per the order.
The shipping industry which dominates the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has adopted a regressive treaty on shipbreaking/ship recycling in May 2009. This effort of IMO has been condemned by the civil society groups as an industry “greenwash” of the horrific status quo. IMO officials have even called the shipbreaking beaches in Alang where workers die routinely, as being “very satisfying.” Contrary to the claims of the IMO, the brutal death of these workers stand as a stark testament to the unsuitability of using ocean beaches for the safe and sound recycling of ships.“Such practices would never be allowed in the UK and it should not be allowed in any country in the world. Shipping companies like Norwegian Cruise LIner/ Star Cruise and others must be made liable and accountable for decontamination costs which they are attempting to escape for good. They should not be allowed to make the laws by which they will insulate themselves.
The continued embargo on both national and international media which stops journalists and researchers from entering the “beaches” is meant to hide these “grave yards” of workers and coastal communities from public attention. It is an unpardonable colossal failure of IMO to allow the ship dismantling/recycling industry to contaminate the
fragile coastal environment like beaches.” In Europe, government owned ships are being broken only in sophisticated yards located in developed countries while commercial
vessels are still too often exported even when such exports violate the law. Just this year, the Able UK shipyard, received the French Aircraft Carrier Clemenceau after French courts ruled that export to India was illegal under the Waste Shipment Regulation. It took over 18 months to decontaminate the ship.
Enviro-occupational hazards induced injury and disease happen in a routine manner in Alang. Union Environment Secretary headed Supreme Court-appointed committee in its report has revealed that the fatal accident rate in Alang is in the range of 2 per 1000 as opposed to 0.34 per 1000 in the mining industry (which is considered worst in the industrial sector). Besides accidents ship-breakers who employ workers on contract never monitor the impact on their health of the toxic substances they are exposed to. Given the lack of monitoring/medical survelliance or tracking of workers who are all migrant workers, its very difficult to ascertain the real health impact on the workers, which we belive to be quite grave. A occupational health survey conducted by the National Institute of Occupational Health of workers at the ship-breaking yards in Alang found that 16 % of the workers examined were exposed to asbestos that leads to incurable lung cancer and other diseases. A recent Central Pollution Control Board study recommends that workers who handle asbestos must be permanentlt employed but it had not been implemented either in the shipbreaking industry or in the asbestos industry.
With regard to rampant manufacturing and cooking of documents underway in Alang, the papers of most of these more than 700 ships that entered Indian waters must be investigated and the likelihood of they having violated both the international and national laws ought to be looked into. Professor M.G.K. Menon, the distinguished scientist who headed the Supreme Court's High Powered Committee on Management of Hazardous Wastes had written to the Chief Justice of India "in a personal capacity as someone who is interested as a citizen of the country." He emphasised that the obsolete ships be "properly decontaminated by the ship-owner prior to the breaking in the country of export." He wrote: "Any effort to dilute the Supreme Court orders of October 14, 2003 to try to remove the concept of prior decontamination would be a measure going against the interests of workers in the ship-breaking yards as also a violation of the Basel Convention."
The case of fake documents in the case of dead US ship Platinum II (SS Independence, SS OCeanic) reveals the hollowness of Union Steel Ministry's claim that "Pursuant to the directives of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a series of measures have been taken for attenuating the hazards of ship breaking and for improving the working conditions at ship-breaking yards. Consequently, detailed protocols and procedures have been put in place for scrutinizing ships arriving for breaking and for handling and disposing of hazardous materials and wastes. The provisions of existing rules take adequate care of the hazards of ship breaking. Further, as and when any shortcomings are noticed, remedial steps are taken." Besides civil society groups, even industry has voiced its concerns. Notably, "The government has rejected this ship for fabrication of document. It's the first time that the this issue has come up though it is rampant -- ships are brought in without clear identification of the owners and the port of registration. It's important to correct this for the security of the country and the shipbreakers," said Pravin Nagarsheth, president of the Iron Steel Scrap and Shipbreaking Association of India as reported in The Times of India (10 November 2009).
In the light of the above, the government must ensure that economics of ship-breaking/recycling is not be built on the destroyed lives of those who dismantle the ships. IMO Convention on ship recycling is anti-worker and anti-environment and is contrary to Prof. Menon's sane advice and our Supreme Court's order. Therefore, to protect the interest of the workers and the Alang beach must be protected by refusing to support the regressive text the IMO treaty.
25/12/2009
Indian law on Wreck
Indian law on wreck is laid down in Part XIII of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. The parent legislation as it now stands in UK deals with the subject more elaborately as could be seen from Part IX of the English Merchant Shipping Act, 1995.
Many questions regarding standards for registration of vessels have brought to light the inadequacy of the existing legal provisions in India pertaining to the responsibility and liability for maritime wrecks and their removal.
There are three problems with wrecks.
First, and depending on its location, a wreck may constitute a hazard to navigation, potentially endangering other vessels and their crews;
second, and of equal concern, depending on the nature of the cargo, is the potential for a wreck to cause substantial damage to the marine and coastal environments;
and third, in an age where goods and services are becoming increasingly expensive, is the issue of the costs involved in the marking and removal of hazardous wrecks.
For a uniform set of international rules and procedures to ensure prompt and effective removal of wrecks and payment of compensation for the costs incurred for the same, under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization recently convened and adopted an international convention on wreck removal in Nairobi, Kenya.
The Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 2007, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Convention’) is expected to fill the vacuum in international maritime law with respect to wrecks and their removal. The convention is not yet in force and is open to signature from November 2007.
Indian statutes dealing wrecks is yet to be appropriately amended so as to meet the felt necessities of the time.
The Indian Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 defines ‘wreck’ in an inclusive manner so as to take in both ‘goods’ and ‘vessels’ [Sec.2 (58)].
The definition from its very wording cannot be construed as exhaustive as to what constitutes a wreck. For being treated as a wreck, goods or vessels, they are to be found either in the ‘sea’ or in ‘tidal waters’ or on ‘shores’. The term ‘sea’ has not been defined in the Act and hence will have to be understood as envisaged in the Indian Maritime Zones Act.
Provisions of law
PART XIII
WRECK AND SALVAGE
Wreck
390.Definition of coasts.- In this Part, the word "coasts" includes the coasts of creeks and tidal rivers.
391.Receivers of wreck.- (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint any person t be a receiver of wreck (in this Part referred to as receiver of wreck) to receive and take possession of wreck and to perform such duties connected therewith as are hereinafter mentioned, within such local limits as may be specified in the notification.
(2) A receiver of wreck may, by order in writing, direct that all or any of this functions under this Part shall, in such circumstances and subject to such conditions, if an by as maybe specified in the order, discharged by such person as maybe specified therein and any person while discharge any such functions shall be deemed to be a received or wreck for the purposes of this Act.
392.Duty of receiver where vessel is in distress.- Where any vessel is wrecked, stranded or in distress at any place on or near the coasts of India, the receiver of wreck, within the limits of whose jurisdiction the place is situation shall upon being under acquainted with the circumstance, forthwith proceed there, and upon his arrival shall take command of all persons present and shall assign such duties and give such directs to each person as he thinks fit for the preservation of the vessel abed of the lives of the persons belonging to the vessel and of its cargo and equipment:
Provided that the receiver shall not interfere between the master and the crew of the vessel in reference to the management thereof unless he is requested to do so by the master.
393.Power to pass over adjoining lands.- (1) Whenever a vessel is wrecked, stranded or in distress as aforesaid, all persons any, for the purpose of rending assistance to the vessel or of saving the lives of the shipwrecked persons, or of saving the cargo or equipment for the vessel, unless there is some public read equally convenient, pass and repass, either with or without vehicles or animals, over any adjoining lands without being subject you instruction by the owner r occupier, so that they do as little damage as possible and may also on the like condition,.deposit on these lands any cargo or other article recovered from the ship.
(2) Any damage sustained by an owner or occupier in consequence of the exercise of the rights given by this section, shall be a charge on the vessel.cargo or articles in respect of by which the damage shall in case of dispute, be determined by magistrate on application made to him in this behalf
394.Power of receiver of wreck to suppress plunder and disorder by force.- Whenever a vessel is wrecked, stranded or in distress as aforesaid, and any person plunders, creates or obstructs the preservation of the vessel or of the wrecked persons or of the cargo equipment of the vessel, the receiver of wreck may take such steps and use such force as he, any cops order necessary for the suppression of any such plundering, disorder or obstruction,.and my for that purpose command any person to assist him.
395.Procedure to be observed by persons finding wreck.- Any person finding and taking possession of any wreck within any local limits for which there is a receiver of wreck, or bringing within such limits any wreck which has been found and taken possession of elsewhere, shall, as soon as practicable-
(a) if he be the owner thereof, give the receiver of wreck notice in writing of the finding thereof and of the marks by which such wreck is distinguished;
(b) if he be not the owner of such wreck, deliver the same to the receiver of wreck.
396.Investigation of certain matters in respect of vessels wrecked.- Whenever any vessel is wrecked, stranded or in distress as aforesaid, the receiver of wreck within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the vessel is wrecked, standard or in distress may conduct an investigation into all or any of the following matters, that is to say,-
(a) the name and description of the vessel;
(b) the names of the master and of the owners;
(c) the names of the owners of the cargo;
(d) the ports from and to which the vessel was bound;
(e) the occasion of the wrecking, standing, or distress of the vessel;
(f) the services rendered; and
(g) such other matters or circumstances relating to the vessel.the cargo or the equipment, as the receiver thinks necessary.
397.Notice to be given by receiver.- The receiver of wreck shall as soon as may be after taking possession of any wreck, publish a notification in such manner and at such place as the Central Government may, by general or special order, direct, containing a description of the wreck and the time at which and the place where it was found.
398.Immediate sale of wreck by receiver in certain cases.- A receiver of wreck may at any time sell any wreck in his custody if, in his opinion,-
(a) it is under the value of five hundred rupees; or
(b) it is so much damaged or of so perishable a nature that it cannot with advantage be kept; or
(c) it is not of sufficient value for warehousing;
and the proceeds of the sale shall, after defraying the expenses thereof, be held by the receiver for the same purposes and subject to the same claims, rights and liabilities as if the wrack had remained unsold.
399.Claims of owners to wreck.- (1) The owner of any wreck in the possession of the receiver upon establishing his claim to the same to the satisfaction of the receiver within one year from the time at which the wreck came into the possession of the receiver shall, upon paying the salvage and other charges, be entitled to have the wreck or the proceeds thereof delivered to him.
(2) Where any articles belonging to or forming part of a vessel other than an Indian vessel which has been wrecked or belonging to and forming part of the cargo of such vessel, are found on or near the costs of India or are brought into any port in India, the consular officer of the country in which the vessel is registered or, in the case of cargo, the country to which the owners f the cargo may have belonged shall, in the absence of the owner and of the master or other agent of the owner, be deemed to be the agent of the owner, with respect to the custody and disposal of the articles.
(3) Where the owner of the wreck does not appear and claim the balance of the proceeds of sale within one year from the date of sale, the said balance shall become the property of the Central Government.
400.Prohibition of certain acts in respect of wreck.- No person shall-
(a) without the leave of the master board or attempt to board any vessel which is wrecked, standard or in distress as aforesaid, unless the person is, or acts by command of, the receiver of wreck; or
(b) impede or hinder or attempt in any way to impede or hinder the saving of any vessel standard or in danger of being stranded or otherwise in distress on or near the coasts of India or of any part of the cargo or equipment of the vessel, or of any wreck; or
(c) secrete any wreck or deface or obliterate any marks thereon; or
(d) wrongfully carry away or remove any part of a vessel stranded or in danger of being stranded or otherwise in distress, on or near the coasts of India, or any part of the cargo or equipment of the vessel or any wreck.
401.Search warrants where wreck is concealed.- Where a receiver of wreck suspects or receives information that any wreck is secreted or in the possession of some person who is not the owner thereof or that any wreck is otherwise improperly dealt with, he may apply to the nearest magistrate for a search warrant, and that magistrate shall have power to grant such warrant and the receiver of wreck by virtue thereof may enter any house or other place wherever situate and also any vessel and search for, seize and detain any such wreck there found.
Salvage
402.Salvage payable for saving life, cargo or wreck.- (1) Where services are rendered-
(a) wholly or in part within the territorial waters of India in saving life from any vessel, or elsewhere in saving life from a vessel registered in India; or
(b) in assisting a vessel or saving the cargo or equipment of a vessel which is wrecked, stranded or in distress at any place on or near the coasts of India; or
(c) by any person other than the receiver of wreck in saving any wreck;
there shall be payable to the salvor by the owner of the vessel, cargo, equipment or wreck, a reasonable sum for salvage having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
(2) Salvage in respect of the preservation of life when payable by the owner of the vessel shall be payable in priority to all other claims for salvage.
(3) Where salvage services are rendered by or on behalf of the Government or by a vessel of the Indian Navy or the commander or crew of any such vessel, the Government, the commander or the crew, as the case may be, shall be entitled to salvage and shall have the same rights and remedies in respect of those services as any other salvor.
(4) Any dispute arising concerning the amount due under this section shall be determined upon application made by either of the disputing parties-
(a) to a magistrate, where the amount claimed does not exceed ten thousand rupees; or
(b) to the High Court, where the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand rupees.
(5) Where there is any dispute as to the persons who re entitled t the salvage amount under this section , the magistrate or the High Court, as the case may be, shall decide the dispute and if there are more persons than one entitled to such amount, the magistrate or the High Court shall apportion the amount thereof among such persons.
(6) The costs of and incidental to all proceedings before a magistrate or the High Court under this section shall be in the discretion of the magistrate or the High Court, and the magistrate or the High Court shall have full power to determine by whom or out of what property and to what extent such costs are to be paid and to give all necessary directions for the purpose aforesaid.
403.Savings.- Nothing in this Part shall-
(a) affect any treaty or arrangement with any foreign country to which India is a operate with reference to the disposal of the proceeds of wrecks on their respective coasts; or
(b) affect the provisions of section 29 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908 (15 of 1908), or entitle any person to salvage in respect of any property recovered by creeping or sweeping in contravention of that section.
404.Power to make rules respecting wreck and salvage.- (1) The central Government may, make rules to carry out the purposes of this Part.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-
(a) the procedure to be followed by a receiver of wreck in respect of the taking possession of wrecks and their disposal;
(b) the fees payable to receivers in respect of the work done by them;
(c) the procedure to be followed for dealing with claims relating to ownership of wrecks;
(d) the appointment of values in salvage cases;
(e) the principles to be followed in awarding salvage and the apportioning of salvage;
(f) the procedure to be followed for dealing with claims for salvage;
(g) the detention of property in the custody of a receiver of wreck for the purpose of enforcing payment of salvage.
Many questions regarding standards for registration of vessels have brought to light the inadequacy of the existing legal provisions in India pertaining to the responsibility and liability for maritime wrecks and their removal.
There are three problems with wrecks.
First, and depending on its location, a wreck may constitute a hazard to navigation, potentially endangering other vessels and their crews;
second, and of equal concern, depending on the nature of the cargo, is the potential for a wreck to cause substantial damage to the marine and coastal environments;
and third, in an age where goods and services are becoming increasingly expensive, is the issue of the costs involved in the marking and removal of hazardous wrecks.
For a uniform set of international rules and procedures to ensure prompt and effective removal of wrecks and payment of compensation for the costs incurred for the same, under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization recently convened and adopted an international convention on wreck removal in Nairobi, Kenya.
The Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 2007, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Convention’) is expected to fill the vacuum in international maritime law with respect to wrecks and their removal. The convention is not yet in force and is open to signature from November 2007.
Indian statutes dealing wrecks is yet to be appropriately amended so as to meet the felt necessities of the time.
The Indian Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 defines ‘wreck’ in an inclusive manner so as to take in both ‘goods’ and ‘vessels’ [Sec.2 (58)].
The definition from its very wording cannot be construed as exhaustive as to what constitutes a wreck. For being treated as a wreck, goods or vessels, they are to be found either in the ‘sea’ or in ‘tidal waters’ or on ‘shores’. The term ‘sea’ has not been defined in the Act and hence will have to be understood as envisaged in the Indian Maritime Zones Act.
Provisions of law
PART XIII
WRECK AND SALVAGE
Wreck
390.Definition of coasts.- In this Part, the word "coasts" includes the coasts of creeks and tidal rivers.
391.Receivers of wreck.- (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint any person t be a receiver of wreck (in this Part referred to as receiver of wreck) to receive and take possession of wreck and to perform such duties connected therewith as are hereinafter mentioned, within such local limits as may be specified in the notification.
(2) A receiver of wreck may, by order in writing, direct that all or any of this functions under this Part shall, in such circumstances and subject to such conditions, if an by as maybe specified in the order, discharged by such person as maybe specified therein and any person while discharge any such functions shall be deemed to be a received or wreck for the purposes of this Act.
392.Duty of receiver where vessel is in distress.- Where any vessel is wrecked, stranded or in distress at any place on or near the coasts of India, the receiver of wreck, within the limits of whose jurisdiction the place is situation shall upon being under acquainted with the circumstance, forthwith proceed there, and upon his arrival shall take command of all persons present and shall assign such duties and give such directs to each person as he thinks fit for the preservation of the vessel abed of the lives of the persons belonging to the vessel and of its cargo and equipment:
Provided that the receiver shall not interfere between the master and the crew of the vessel in reference to the management thereof unless he is requested to do so by the master.
393.Power to pass over adjoining lands.- (1) Whenever a vessel is wrecked, stranded or in distress as aforesaid, all persons any, for the purpose of rending assistance to the vessel or of saving the lives of the shipwrecked persons, or of saving the cargo or equipment for the vessel, unless there is some public read equally convenient, pass and repass, either with or without vehicles or animals, over any adjoining lands without being subject you instruction by the owner r occupier, so that they do as little damage as possible and may also on the like condition,.deposit on these lands any cargo or other article recovered from the ship.
(2) Any damage sustained by an owner or occupier in consequence of the exercise of the rights given by this section, shall be a charge on the vessel.cargo or articles in respect of by which the damage shall in case of dispute, be determined by magistrate on application made to him in this behalf
394.Power of receiver of wreck to suppress plunder and disorder by force.- Whenever a vessel is wrecked, stranded or in distress as aforesaid, and any person plunders, creates or obstructs the preservation of the vessel or of the wrecked persons or of the cargo equipment of the vessel, the receiver of wreck may take such steps and use such force as he, any cops order necessary for the suppression of any such plundering, disorder or obstruction,.and my for that purpose command any person to assist him.
395.Procedure to be observed by persons finding wreck.- Any person finding and taking possession of any wreck within any local limits for which there is a receiver of wreck, or bringing within such limits any wreck which has been found and taken possession of elsewhere, shall, as soon as practicable-
(a) if he be the owner thereof, give the receiver of wreck notice in writing of the finding thereof and of the marks by which such wreck is distinguished;
(b) if he be not the owner of such wreck, deliver the same to the receiver of wreck.
396.Investigation of certain matters in respect of vessels wrecked.- Whenever any vessel is wrecked, stranded or in distress as aforesaid, the receiver of wreck within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the vessel is wrecked, standard or in distress may conduct an investigation into all or any of the following matters, that is to say,-
(a) the name and description of the vessel;
(b) the names of the master and of the owners;
(c) the names of the owners of the cargo;
(d) the ports from and to which the vessel was bound;
(e) the occasion of the wrecking, standing, or distress of the vessel;
(f) the services rendered; and
(g) such other matters or circumstances relating to the vessel.the cargo or the equipment, as the receiver thinks necessary.
397.Notice to be given by receiver.- The receiver of wreck shall as soon as may be after taking possession of any wreck, publish a notification in such manner and at such place as the Central Government may, by general or special order, direct, containing a description of the wreck and the time at which and the place where it was found.
398.Immediate sale of wreck by receiver in certain cases.- A receiver of wreck may at any time sell any wreck in his custody if, in his opinion,-
(a) it is under the value of five hundred rupees; or
(b) it is so much damaged or of so perishable a nature that it cannot with advantage be kept; or
(c) it is not of sufficient value for warehousing;
and the proceeds of the sale shall, after defraying the expenses thereof, be held by the receiver for the same purposes and subject to the same claims, rights and liabilities as if the wrack had remained unsold.
399.Claims of owners to wreck.- (1) The owner of any wreck in the possession of the receiver upon establishing his claim to the same to the satisfaction of the receiver within one year from the time at which the wreck came into the possession of the receiver shall, upon paying the salvage and other charges, be entitled to have the wreck or the proceeds thereof delivered to him.
(2) Where any articles belonging to or forming part of a vessel other than an Indian vessel which has been wrecked or belonging to and forming part of the cargo of such vessel, are found on or near the costs of India or are brought into any port in India, the consular officer of the country in which the vessel is registered or, in the case of cargo, the country to which the owners f the cargo may have belonged shall, in the absence of the owner and of the master or other agent of the owner, be deemed to be the agent of the owner, with respect to the custody and disposal of the articles.
(3) Where the owner of the wreck does not appear and claim the balance of the proceeds of sale within one year from the date of sale, the said balance shall become the property of the Central Government.
400.Prohibition of certain acts in respect of wreck.- No person shall-
(a) without the leave of the master board or attempt to board any vessel which is wrecked, standard or in distress as aforesaid, unless the person is, or acts by command of, the receiver of wreck; or
(b) impede or hinder or attempt in any way to impede or hinder the saving of any vessel standard or in danger of being stranded or otherwise in distress on or near the coasts of India or of any part of the cargo or equipment of the vessel, or of any wreck; or
(c) secrete any wreck or deface or obliterate any marks thereon; or
(d) wrongfully carry away or remove any part of a vessel stranded or in danger of being stranded or otherwise in distress, on or near the coasts of India, or any part of the cargo or equipment of the vessel or any wreck.
401.Search warrants where wreck is concealed.- Where a receiver of wreck suspects or receives information that any wreck is secreted or in the possession of some person who is not the owner thereof or that any wreck is otherwise improperly dealt with, he may apply to the nearest magistrate for a search warrant, and that magistrate shall have power to grant such warrant and the receiver of wreck by virtue thereof may enter any house or other place wherever situate and also any vessel and search for, seize and detain any such wreck there found.
Salvage
402.Salvage payable for saving life, cargo or wreck.- (1) Where services are rendered-
(a) wholly or in part within the territorial waters of India in saving life from any vessel, or elsewhere in saving life from a vessel registered in India; or
(b) in assisting a vessel or saving the cargo or equipment of a vessel which is wrecked, stranded or in distress at any place on or near the coasts of India; or
(c) by any person other than the receiver of wreck in saving any wreck;
there shall be payable to the salvor by the owner of the vessel, cargo, equipment or wreck, a reasonable sum for salvage having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
(2) Salvage in respect of the preservation of life when payable by the owner of the vessel shall be payable in priority to all other claims for salvage.
(3) Where salvage services are rendered by or on behalf of the Government or by a vessel of the Indian Navy or the commander or crew of any such vessel, the Government, the commander or the crew, as the case may be, shall be entitled to salvage and shall have the same rights and remedies in respect of those services as any other salvor.
(4) Any dispute arising concerning the amount due under this section shall be determined upon application made by either of the disputing parties-
(a) to a magistrate, where the amount claimed does not exceed ten thousand rupees; or
(b) to the High Court, where the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand rupees.
(5) Where there is any dispute as to the persons who re entitled t the salvage amount under this section , the magistrate or the High Court, as the case may be, shall decide the dispute and if there are more persons than one entitled to such amount, the magistrate or the High Court shall apportion the amount thereof among such persons.
(6) The costs of and incidental to all proceedings before a magistrate or the High Court under this section shall be in the discretion of the magistrate or the High Court, and the magistrate or the High Court shall have full power to determine by whom or out of what property and to what extent such costs are to be paid and to give all necessary directions for the purpose aforesaid.
403.Savings.- Nothing in this Part shall-
(a) affect any treaty or arrangement with any foreign country to which India is a operate with reference to the disposal of the proceeds of wrecks on their respective coasts; or
(b) affect the provisions of section 29 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908 (15 of 1908), or entitle any person to salvage in respect of any property recovered by creeping or sweeping in contravention of that section.
404.Power to make rules respecting wreck and salvage.- (1) The central Government may, make rules to carry out the purposes of this Part.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-
(a) the procedure to be followed by a receiver of wreck in respect of the taking possession of wrecks and their disposal;
(b) the fees payable to receivers in respect of the work done by them;
(c) the procedure to be followed for dealing with claims relating to ownership of wrecks;
(d) the appointment of values in salvage cases;
(e) the principles to be followed in awarding salvage and the apportioning of salvage;
(f) the procedure to be followed for dealing with claims for salvage;
(g) the detention of property in the custody of a receiver of wreck for the purpose of enforcing payment of salvage.
वापस जाना होगा प्लेटिनम-2 जहाज को
अलंग (गुजरात) के समुद्र तट पर खड़े यूएस जहाज प्लेटिनम-2 को वापस जाना होगा। केंद्र सरकार ने गुजरात सरकार से कहा है कि प्लेटिनम -2 को अलंग में बीचिंग और ब्रेकिंग की इजाजत न दी जाए। क्योंकि इसमें बेहद जहरीले पदार्थ और रेडिओएक्टिव सबस्टेंस हैं। पर्यावरण बचाने की लड़ाई लड़ रहे लोगों ने इसे एक बड़ी जीत करार दिया है। साथ ही मांग की है कि अलंग में खडे. बाकी के 200 जहाजों की भी जांच की जाए। मुमकिन है कि वह भी इसी तरह नियम कानूनों को ताक पर रखकर यहां आए हों।
सोमवार को वन और पर्यावरण मंत्रालय ने गुजरात मेरिटाइम बोर्ड (जीएमबी) को चिट्ठी लिखकर कहा है कि प्लेटिनम-2 ने यूनाइटेड स्टेट्स टॉक्सिक सबस्टेंसेज एक्ट का उल्लंघन किया है। यह जहाज झूठे दस्तावेजों के सहारे यहां आया। मंत्रालय ने जहाज की जांच के लिए एक टेक्निकल टीम गठित की थी जिसने 26 अक्टूबर को मंत्रालय को अपनी रिपोर्ट जमा की थी। रिपोर्ट के आधार पर मंत्रालय ने यह फैसला लिया। गौरतलब है कि फरवरी 2006 में फ्रेंच जहाज क्लेमेन्शु को भी इसी तरह वापस जाना पड़ा था। प्लेटिनम- 2 को लेकर सबसे पहले आवाज बुलंद करने वाले टॉक्सिक वॉच के गोपाल कृष्ण कहते हैं कि यह एक बड़ी जीत है। इससे एक संदेश जाएगा और अब जो भी जहाज यहां आएंगे उन्हें नियमों का पालन करना पड़ेगा।
जब प्लेटिनम -2 भारतीय सीमा में दाखिल हुआ था तभी सवाल उठे थे कि इस जहाज का कोई खरीदार नहीं है तो यह भारतीय सीमा में अवैध तरीके के कैसे दाखिल हो गया। इस जहाज पर खुद अमेरिकी प्रशासन भी जुर्माना लगा चुका है। अंतराष्ट्रीय संधि के मुताबिक जब तक जहाज को पूरी तरह से क्लीन घोषित न कर दिया जाए तब तक उसे किसी देश में टूटने के लिए नहीं भेजा जा सकता। अलंग के शिपब्रेकिंग यार्ड में हर साल सैकड़ों जहाज टूटने के लिए आते हैं। भारत के अलंग और बांग्लादेश के चटगांव दो बड़े शिपब्रेकिंग सेंटर हैं। गोपाल कृष्ण कहते हैं कि कानून के मुताबिक जहाज जब तोड़ने के लिए भेजे जाते हैं तो उन्हें पूरी तरह से जहरमुक्त करते भारतीय सीमा में प्रवेश दिया जाना चाहिए लेकिन शिपब्रेकिंग यार्ड की लॉबी काफी मजबूत हो। वह कानूनों का उल्लंघन करते रहते हैं और अब तक किसी को कोई सजा नहीं हुई है। जहाजों पर खतरनाक पदार्थ की वजह से हर साल अलंग में सैकड़ों मजदूर मरते हैं और इसकी तादाद किसी भी दूसरे उद्योग से ज्यादा है।
पूनम पाण्डे ।। नई दिल्ली
http://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/5212563.cms
सोमवार को वन और पर्यावरण मंत्रालय ने गुजरात मेरिटाइम बोर्ड (जीएमबी) को चिट्ठी लिखकर कहा है कि प्लेटिनम-2 ने यूनाइटेड स्टेट्स टॉक्सिक सबस्टेंसेज एक्ट का उल्लंघन किया है। यह जहाज झूठे दस्तावेजों के सहारे यहां आया। मंत्रालय ने जहाज की जांच के लिए एक टेक्निकल टीम गठित की थी जिसने 26 अक्टूबर को मंत्रालय को अपनी रिपोर्ट जमा की थी। रिपोर्ट के आधार पर मंत्रालय ने यह फैसला लिया। गौरतलब है कि फरवरी 2006 में फ्रेंच जहाज क्लेमेन्शु को भी इसी तरह वापस जाना पड़ा था। प्लेटिनम- 2 को लेकर सबसे पहले आवाज बुलंद करने वाले टॉक्सिक वॉच के गोपाल कृष्ण कहते हैं कि यह एक बड़ी जीत है। इससे एक संदेश जाएगा और अब जो भी जहाज यहां आएंगे उन्हें नियमों का पालन करना पड़ेगा।
जब प्लेटिनम -2 भारतीय सीमा में दाखिल हुआ था तभी सवाल उठे थे कि इस जहाज का कोई खरीदार नहीं है तो यह भारतीय सीमा में अवैध तरीके के कैसे दाखिल हो गया। इस जहाज पर खुद अमेरिकी प्रशासन भी जुर्माना लगा चुका है। अंतराष्ट्रीय संधि के मुताबिक जब तक जहाज को पूरी तरह से क्लीन घोषित न कर दिया जाए तब तक उसे किसी देश में टूटने के लिए नहीं भेजा जा सकता। अलंग के शिपब्रेकिंग यार्ड में हर साल सैकड़ों जहाज टूटने के लिए आते हैं। भारत के अलंग और बांग्लादेश के चटगांव दो बड़े शिपब्रेकिंग सेंटर हैं। गोपाल कृष्ण कहते हैं कि कानून के मुताबिक जहाज जब तोड़ने के लिए भेजे जाते हैं तो उन्हें पूरी तरह से जहरमुक्त करते भारतीय सीमा में प्रवेश दिया जाना चाहिए लेकिन शिपब्रेकिंग यार्ड की लॉबी काफी मजबूत हो। वह कानूनों का उल्लंघन करते रहते हैं और अब तक किसी को कोई सजा नहीं हुई है। जहाजों पर खतरनाक पदार्थ की वजह से हर साल अलंग में सैकड़ों मजदूर मरते हैं और इसकी तादाद किसी भी दूसरे उद्योग से ज्यादा है।
पूनम पाण्डे ।। नई दिल्ली
http://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/5212563.cms
13/12/2009
In 4 Years, More Than 700 Dead Ships Dumped in Alang
Press Note
In 4 Years, More Than 700 Dead Ships Dumped in Alang
Fake Documents Facilitate corporate crimes of shipping companies
New Delhi/13/12/2009: Misplaced claims were made in a written reply in the Rajya Sabha on December 11, 2009 saying, "Ship breaking activities are undertaken at Alang and the operational procedures are being followed as per the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of 17.02.2006, a Central Technical Committee (CTC) under the Chairmanship of Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests was set up to regulate various activities of ship breaking industries. The CTC gave its recommendations touching all aspects of ship breaking. The recommendations are operative by virtue of the Supreme Court Order dated 6.9.2007." Almost all the relevant orders of the court has been violated. Most starkly, the apex court order of 2007 states, "It is desirable that the Government of India shall formulate a comprehensive Code incorporating the recommendations and the same has to be operative until the concerned Statutes are amended to be in line with the recommendations." But so far the court's order even with regard to the Code has not been complied with although more than two years have passed since the judgement dated 6.9.2007.
In 2006-07, 136 ships came to Alang. Between 2007-08 too, 136 ships came to Alang and in 2008-09, the number was 264 ships and this year up to November 2009, 214 ships have come to Gujarat's Alang beach. This information was given by A. Sai Prathap, Union Minister of State for Steel in a written reply in the Rajya Sabha on 11 December, 2009.
The alarming rise in the rate of reported death of workers in Alang is contrary to the Ministry's claim that "Based on the report received from Gujarat Maritime Board, it is stated that at present, there are around 17000-18000 trained labours engaged in ship recycling at Alang by the Ship Recyclers." The MInister's statement is inconsistent with what has routinely appeared even in the local and national media. In 2009 alone, too many fatal accidents have occurred. It is estimated that 3-5 workers die every month either from occupational disease from shipborne hazardous substances like asbestos or PCBs, or from explosions, fires and other accidents. The primary reason why workers die in a regular manner is that the shipowners of the developed countries like US and from Europe have escaped the decontamination cost of obsolete ships with impunity due to the active connivance of Indian officials. Since 1983, the shipbreakers have blindly profited from such a situation at the cost of workers' life, villagers health and toxic pollution.
On 4 August, 2009, 6 workers perished in a tanker fire at the yards in Alang beach that took 6 hours to extinguish. These six labourers were burnt alive in an engine room at Alang ship breaking yard on on plot no. 24 at Alang beach despite the fact that UN’s International Maritime Organisation has certified Alang beach as a safe place for hazardous industrial activity like ship dismantling. The incident took place when some workers of Alang Auto & General Engineering Co. (P) Ltd were cutting down the engine portion of ship ‘M S Jesica’ in the world’s largest ship scrapping yard. The fire officials took almost three hours to douse the blaze. The exact cause of fire is yet to be ascertained. The company is owned by Udai Agarwal and Abhinav Kumar. Earlier, two fatal accidents have been reported in May and June 2009. The earlier accident that occurred on the 1st June, 2009 on Plot 15 of the ship-breaking yard involved a labourer identified as Ayodhyasingh Rajput. Such fatal accident occurred at Plot 24 D in May, 2009 as well. Similar accidents were reported in earlier and later months as well. Each time 'negliegence' is cited as reason and the matter is dismissed.
The Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) on Shipbreaking, Union Ministry of Steel has revealed cruel passivity in its response to the deaths of migrant workers in Alang so far.
It has not ascertained the plight of migrant workers working and their living environment at Alang beach and also to explore whether the industrial activity can be taken off the beach. The Supreme Court order of October 14, 2003 and September 6, 2007 led to the creation of an Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) comprising Ministry of Surface Transport, Ministry of Steel, Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Environment and Forests was constituted and its continuance. Para 58 of the 2003 order and para 8 of 2007 order reads, "According to the recommendation of HPC, the Iner-Ministerial Committee (IMC) comprising Ministry of Surface Transport, Ministry of -Steel, Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Environment should be constituted with the involvement of Labour and Environment organizations and representatives of the ship breaking Industries." Involvement of labour and environment organisations in compliance of the court's specific order has not been ensured as was required as per the order.
The shipping industry which dominates the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has adopted a regressive treaty on shipbreaking/ship recycling in May 2009. This effort of IMO has been condemned by the civil society groups as an industry “greenwash” of the horrific status quo. IMO officials have even called the shipbreaking beaches in Alang where workers die routinely, as being “very satisfying.” Contrary to the claims of the IMO, the brutal death of these workers stand as a stark testament to the unsuitability of using ocean beaches for the safe and sound recycling of ships.“Such practices would never be allowed in the UK and it should not be allowed in any country in the world. Shipping companies like Norwegian Cruise LIner/ Star Cruise and others must be made liable and accountable for decontamination costs which they are attempting to escape for good. They should not be allowed to make the laws by which they will insulate themselves.
The continued embargo on both national and international media which stops journalists and researchers from entering the “beaches” is meant to hide these “grave yards” of workers and coastal communities from public attention. It is an unpardonable colossal failure of IMO to allow the ship dismantling/recycling industry to contaminate the fragile coastal environment like beaches.” In Europe, government owned ships are being broken only in sophisticated yards located in developed countries while commercial vessels are still too often exported even when such exports violate the law. Just this year, the Able UK shipyard, received the French Aircraft Carrier Clemenceau after French courts ruled that export to India was illegal under the Waste Shipment Regulation. It took over 18 months to decontaminate the ship.
Enviro-occupational hazards induced injury and disease happen in a routine manner in Alang. Union Environment Secretary headed Supreme Court-appointed committee in its report has revealed that the fatal accident rate in Alang is in the range of 2 per 1000 as opposed to 0.34 per 1000 in the mining industry (which is considered worst in the industrial sector). Besides accidents ship-breakers who employ workers on contract never monitor the impact on their health of the toxic substances they are exposed to. Given the lack of monitoring/medical survelliance or tracking of workers who are all migrant workers, its very difficult to ascertain the real health impact on the workers, which we belive to be quite grave. A occupational health survey conducted by the National Institute of Occupational Health of workers at the ship-breaking yards in Alang found that 16 % of the workers examined were exposed to asbestos that leads to incurable lung cancer and other diseases. A recent Central Pollution Control Board study recommends that workers who handle asbestos must be permanentlt employed but it had not been implemented either in the shipbreaking industry or in the asbestos industry.
With regard to rampant manufacturing and cooking of documents underway in Alang, the papers of most of these more than 700 ships that entered Indian waters must be investigated and the likelihood of they having violated both the international and national laws ought to be looked into. Professor M.G.K. Menon, the distinguished scientist who headed the Supreme Court's High Powered Committee on Management of Hazardous Wastes had written to the Chief Justice of India "in a personal capacity as someone who is interested as a citizen of the country." He emphasised that the obsolete ships be "properly decontaminated by the ship-owner prior to the breaking in the country of export." He wrote: "Any effort to dilute the Supreme Court orders of October 14, 2003 to try to remove the concept of prior decontamination would be a measure going against the interests of workers in the ship-breaking yards as also a violation of the Basel Convention."
The case of fake documents in the case of dead US ship Platinum II (SS Independence, SS OCeanic) reveals the hollowness of Union Steel Ministry's claim that "Pursuant to the directives of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a series of measures have been taken for attenuating the hazards of ship breaking and for improving the working conditions at ship-breaking yards. Consequently, detailed protocols and procedures have been put in place for scrutinizing ships arriving for breaking and for handling and disposing of hazardous materials and wastes. The provisions of existing rules take adequate care of the hazards of ship breaking. Further, as and when any shortcomings are noticed, remedial steps are taken." Besides civil society groups, even industry has voiced its concerns. Notably, "The government has rejected this ship for fabrication of document. It's the first time that the this issue has come up though it is rampant -- ships are brought in without clear identification of the owners and the port of registration. It's important to correct this for the security of the country and the shipbreakers," said Pravin Nagarsheth, president of the Iron Steel Scrap and Shipbreaking Association of India as reported in The Times of India (10 November 2009).
In the light of the above, the government must ensure that economics of ship-breaking/recycling is not be built on the destroyed lives of those who dismantle the ships. IMO Convention on ship recycling is anti-worker and anti-environment and is contrary to Prof. Menon's sane advice and our Supreme Court's order. Therefore, to protect the interest of the workers and the Alang beach must be protected by refusing to support the regressive text the IMO treaty and by ensuring that the industrial activity is taken off the beach and away from the ecologically fragile coastal environment. The currently practiced “beaching method” whereby obsolete ships are run aground on ocean beaches for cutting and breaking apart in the intertidal zone can never be accomplished in a manner which is environmentally sound or protective of human health. On careful analysis of the intrinsic characteristics of beaching operations invloved in the current pratice of shipbreaking/recycling, it would emerge that no amount of prescriptive improvements or protections can remedy the fatal characteristics of intertidal beaching operations. These fatal flaws of the beaching method inevitably will result in causing avoidable death and pollution.
For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance/Indian Platform on Shipbreaking, Mb: 9818089660, E-mail: 9818089660
In 4 Years, More Than 700 Dead Ships Dumped in Alang
Fake Documents Facilitate corporate crimes of shipping companies
New Delhi/13/12/2009: Misplaced claims were made in a written reply in the Rajya Sabha on December 11, 2009 saying, "Ship breaking activities are undertaken at Alang and the operational procedures are being followed as per the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of 17.02.2006, a Central Technical Committee (CTC) under the Chairmanship of Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests was set up to regulate various activities of ship breaking industries. The CTC gave its recommendations touching all aspects of ship breaking. The recommendations are operative by virtue of the Supreme Court Order dated 6.9.2007." Almost all the relevant orders of the court has been violated. Most starkly, the apex court order of 2007 states, "It is desirable that the Government of India shall formulate a comprehensive Code incorporating the recommendations and the same has to be operative until the concerned Statutes are amended to be in line with the recommendations." But so far the court's order even with regard to the Code has not been complied with although more than two years have passed since the judgement dated 6.9.2007.
In 2006-07, 136 ships came to Alang. Between 2007-08 too, 136 ships came to Alang and in 2008-09, the number was 264 ships and this year up to November 2009, 214 ships have come to Gujarat's Alang beach. This information was given by A. Sai Prathap, Union Minister of State for Steel in a written reply in the Rajya Sabha on 11 December, 2009.
The alarming rise in the rate of reported death of workers in Alang is contrary to the Ministry's claim that "Based on the report received from Gujarat Maritime Board, it is stated that at present, there are around 17000-18000 trained labours engaged in ship recycling at Alang by the Ship Recyclers." The MInister's statement is inconsistent with what has routinely appeared even in the local and national media. In 2009 alone, too many fatal accidents have occurred. It is estimated that 3-5 workers die every month either from occupational disease from shipborne hazardous substances like asbestos or PCBs, or from explosions, fires and other accidents. The primary reason why workers die in a regular manner is that the shipowners of the developed countries like US and from Europe have escaped the decontamination cost of obsolete ships with impunity due to the active connivance of Indian officials. Since 1983, the shipbreakers have blindly profited from such a situation at the cost of workers' life, villagers health and toxic pollution.
On 4 August, 2009, 6 workers perished in a tanker fire at the yards in Alang beach that took 6 hours to extinguish. These six labourers were burnt alive in an engine room at Alang ship breaking yard on on plot no. 24 at Alang beach despite the fact that UN’s International Maritime Organisation has certified Alang beach as a safe place for hazardous industrial activity like ship dismantling. The incident took place when some workers of Alang Auto & General Engineering Co. (P) Ltd were cutting down the engine portion of ship ‘M S Jesica’ in the world’s largest ship scrapping yard. The fire officials took almost three hours to douse the blaze. The exact cause of fire is yet to be ascertained. The company is owned by Udai Agarwal and Abhinav Kumar. Earlier, two fatal accidents have been reported in May and June 2009. The earlier accident that occurred on the 1st June, 2009 on Plot 15 of the ship-breaking yard involved a labourer identified as Ayodhyasingh Rajput. Such fatal accident occurred at Plot 24 D in May, 2009 as well. Similar accidents were reported in earlier and later months as well. Each time 'negliegence' is cited as reason and the matter is dismissed.
The Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) on Shipbreaking, Union Ministry of Steel has revealed cruel passivity in its response to the deaths of migrant workers in Alang so far.
It has not ascertained the plight of migrant workers working and their living environment at Alang beach and also to explore whether the industrial activity can be taken off the beach. The Supreme Court order of October 14, 2003 and September 6, 2007 led to the creation of an Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) comprising Ministry of Surface Transport, Ministry of Steel, Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Environment and Forests was constituted and its continuance. Para 58 of the 2003 order and para 8 of 2007 order reads, "According to the recommendation of HPC, the Iner-Ministerial Committee (IMC) comprising Ministry of Surface Transport, Ministry of -Steel, Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Environment should be constituted with the involvement of Labour and Environment organizations and representatives of the ship breaking Industries." Involvement of labour and environment organisations in compliance of the court's specific order has not been ensured as was required as per the order.
The shipping industry which dominates the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has adopted a regressive treaty on shipbreaking/ship recycling in May 2009. This effort of IMO has been condemned by the civil society groups as an industry “greenwash” of the horrific status quo. IMO officials have even called the shipbreaking beaches in Alang where workers die routinely, as being “very satisfying.” Contrary to the claims of the IMO, the brutal death of these workers stand as a stark testament to the unsuitability of using ocean beaches for the safe and sound recycling of ships.“Such practices would never be allowed in the UK and it should not be allowed in any country in the world. Shipping companies like Norwegian Cruise LIner/ Star Cruise and others must be made liable and accountable for decontamination costs which they are attempting to escape for good. They should not be allowed to make the laws by which they will insulate themselves.
The continued embargo on both national and international media which stops journalists and researchers from entering the “beaches” is meant to hide these “grave yards” of workers and coastal communities from public attention. It is an unpardonable colossal failure of IMO to allow the ship dismantling/recycling industry to contaminate the fragile coastal environment like beaches.” In Europe, government owned ships are being broken only in sophisticated yards located in developed countries while commercial vessels are still too often exported even when such exports violate the law. Just this year, the Able UK shipyard, received the French Aircraft Carrier Clemenceau after French courts ruled that export to India was illegal under the Waste Shipment Regulation. It took over 18 months to decontaminate the ship.
Enviro-occupational hazards induced injury and disease happen in a routine manner in Alang. Union Environment Secretary headed Supreme Court-appointed committee in its report has revealed that the fatal accident rate in Alang is in the range of 2 per 1000 as opposed to 0.34 per 1000 in the mining industry (which is considered worst in the industrial sector). Besides accidents ship-breakers who employ workers on contract never monitor the impact on their health of the toxic substances they are exposed to. Given the lack of monitoring/medical survelliance or tracking of workers who are all migrant workers, its very difficult to ascertain the real health impact on the workers, which we belive to be quite grave. A occupational health survey conducted by the National Institute of Occupational Health of workers at the ship-breaking yards in Alang found that 16 % of the workers examined were exposed to asbestos that leads to incurable lung cancer and other diseases. A recent Central Pollution Control Board study recommends that workers who handle asbestos must be permanentlt employed but it had not been implemented either in the shipbreaking industry or in the asbestos industry.
With regard to rampant manufacturing and cooking of documents underway in Alang, the papers of most of these more than 700 ships that entered Indian waters must be investigated and the likelihood of they having violated both the international and national laws ought to be looked into. Professor M.G.K. Menon, the distinguished scientist who headed the Supreme Court's High Powered Committee on Management of Hazardous Wastes had written to the Chief Justice of India "in a personal capacity as someone who is interested as a citizen of the country." He emphasised that the obsolete ships be "properly decontaminated by the ship-owner prior to the breaking in the country of export." He wrote: "Any effort to dilute the Supreme Court orders of October 14, 2003 to try to remove the concept of prior decontamination would be a measure going against the interests of workers in the ship-breaking yards as also a violation of the Basel Convention."
The case of fake documents in the case of dead US ship Platinum II (SS Independence, SS OCeanic) reveals the hollowness of Union Steel Ministry's claim that "Pursuant to the directives of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a series of measures have been taken for attenuating the hazards of ship breaking and for improving the working conditions at ship-breaking yards. Consequently, detailed protocols and procedures have been put in place for scrutinizing ships arriving for breaking and for handling and disposing of hazardous materials and wastes. The provisions of existing rules take adequate care of the hazards of ship breaking. Further, as and when any shortcomings are noticed, remedial steps are taken." Besides civil society groups, even industry has voiced its concerns. Notably, "The government has rejected this ship for fabrication of document. It's the first time that the this issue has come up though it is rampant -- ships are brought in without clear identification of the owners and the port of registration. It's important to correct this for the security of the country and the shipbreakers," said Pravin Nagarsheth, president of the Iron Steel Scrap and Shipbreaking Association of India as reported in The Times of India (10 November 2009).
In the light of the above, the government must ensure that economics of ship-breaking/recycling is not be built on the destroyed lives of those who dismantle the ships. IMO Convention on ship recycling is anti-worker and anti-environment and is contrary to Prof. Menon's sane advice and our Supreme Court's order. Therefore, to protect the interest of the workers and the Alang beach must be protected by refusing to support the regressive text the IMO treaty and by ensuring that the industrial activity is taken off the beach and away from the ecologically fragile coastal environment. The currently practiced “beaching method” whereby obsolete ships are run aground on ocean beaches for cutting and breaking apart in the intertidal zone can never be accomplished in a manner which is environmentally sound or protective of human health. On careful analysis of the intrinsic characteristics of beaching operations invloved in the current pratice of shipbreaking/recycling, it would emerge that no amount of prescriptive improvements or protections can remedy the fatal characteristics of intertidal beaching operations. These fatal flaws of the beaching method inevitably will result in causing avoidable death and pollution.
For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance/Indian Platform on Shipbreaking, Mb: 9818089660, E-mail: 9818089660
09/12/2009
Alang's fake document factory & Dead US ship Platinum II
To
Mr Jairam Ramesh
Union Minister for Environment & Forests
Government of India
New Delhi
Subject- Implementation of order on US ship Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) & Alang's fake document factory
Dear Sir,
This is to inform you that despite your order on US Ship "Platinum -II"(SS Oceanic, SS Independence), dated November 9th, 2009, the dead US ship is still at the Anchorage Point at Bhavnagar, Gujarat. As of now no one know as to who owns Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence). This is the question that remains unanswered. It is not a question of one dead ship alone.
No one know who has signed the Memorandum of Agreement with whom, whether this ship is insured, who is attending the ship and who is the owner of the ship. Initially, there were two tugs with the dead ship which brought it in Indian waters but now one tug is missing. It appears that the environmental issue of the toxic dead US ship has turned into a matter of criminal conspiracy as well. Intelligence documents quoted in newspapers appear to be right in warning the concerned authorities about security concerns from fake documents being manufactured in Alang and elsewhere. Alang can be deemed as a cooking factory for fake documents. Questions which have been raised about the situation Alang in the current session of the parliament awaits answers from the government.
Meanhwhile, industry has also revealed its concerns. Vishnu Kumar Gupta, President, Alang Ship Recycling Industries Association, Bhavnagar notes that there is controversy over ownership. The Republic of Kiribati, where the ship was claimed to be registered has clarified that the papers filed with Indian authorities by the ship-owners were fake.
"The government has rejected this ship for fabrication of document. It's the first time that the this issue has come up though it is rampant -- ships are brought in without clear identification of the owners and the port of registration. It's important to correct this for the security of the country and the shipbreakers," said Pravin Nagarsheth, president of the Iron Steel Scrap and Shipbreaking Association of India as reported in The Times of India (10 November 2009).
Notably, as per Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) Inspection Reports and other documents submitted by GPCB and Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) to Central Technical Team constituted by Union Ministry of Environment & Forests, the US ship named ‘Platinum-II’ (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) with IMO No. 5160180 was towed by Tug – Barracuda-I from Dubai. The name of the Tug that towed Platinum-II is Barracuda-I (IMO No. 6717019). This tug too is not registered with Kiribati Ship Registry, Singapore
Komal Kant Sharma, the owner of Leela Ship Recycling Pvt Ltd had offered to buy the convicted and dead US ship Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence). As per the report of the Central Technical Team, the ship still had a US flag painted on its chimney.
In order dated November 9th, 2009, you had asked Gujarat Maritime Board to probe allegations that the ship had been brought into India with a falsified flag and registry, it appears that an inquiry by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alone would unearth the malpractices underway because GMB does not have the competence to deal with cases of fraudulent and criminal misrepresentation.
While the November 7, 2009 order of the union environment ministry has established that in the aftermath of the September 6 and Setember 11, 2007 order of the Supreme Court, the post of registry of most of more than 200 ships have not been properly investigated before desk clearance and the entry of dead and toxic ships in India. There is a need for ordering the investigation of the port of registry of all the dead ships that came at Alang after the somewaht ambiguous order of the Supreme Court dated September 6, 2007 and September 11, 2007 (apparently undermining the order of 14th October, 2003).
It creates a compelling logic to do so now both with regard to previous ships and any new ship in future. The intelligence reports too refer to threats to our environmental security and the current regulations seem to allow dead ships innocent passage through the entire stretch of Indian waters unscrutinized by the security agencies. Besides environmental security, maritime security, national security also seems to be a casualty. The minutes of the Inter-ministerial committee on shipbreaking (constituted by the Supreme Court) refers to security threats from the Alang based industry. It merits attention as well.
Indian government authorties and media fails once again in its reporting about the ownership of the obsolete US ship. Star Cruises/Norwegian Cruise Lines (NCL) has repeatedly created a corporate veil to flaunt the law. The ownership of Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) was transferred to a shell company known as California Manufacturing Corporation, which is located in the same building as Star Cruises/NCL in Miami, Florida. This company transferred the ownership to Global Shipping LLC & its affiliate Global Marketing Services. At no point was there any evidence that any Indian has bought the ship.
Repeating the mistakes committed by both government officials and media as in the case of Le Clemenceau, the French ship wherein they kept stating and reporting till the end tha the ship was owned by an Indian owner, in the Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) matter too it continued to report that it is owned by an Indian owner despite evidence to the contrary. The officials and the media did not rectify its errors at any moment even when it became abundantly clear the it was owned by the French company. In the present case of Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) too so far it has failed to make amends.
The story of Riky, the Danish ship, Le Clemenceau, SS Blue Lady and others creates a compelling need for investigating the ownership of the ship and the name of the country which owns it. The case of Riky merits special attention. First, a ship with dubious credentials left the shores of Denmark. Then a month later, Indian government allowed it to beach at Alang. On 23 April 2005, "Riky" arrived for scrapping at Alang under the jurisdiction of Gujarat Maritime Board. Even the flag under which the ship sailed in isn't perfectly clear. N B Deshmukh, Assistant Commissioner, Customs Division, Bhavnagar, Gujarat said that Riky was carrying the flag of Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (North Korea). However, the ship's admission into India was challenged in the Supreme Court alleging that the ship sailed in under the flag of Roxa, a non-existent "country". The case is still pending in the apex court. Even in this case the registration document for renaming the ship was fabricated to allow beaching in a bid to confuse the Danish authorities. Riky has since been dismantled but the issue of whether Government of India's decision to let in the ship enter Indian waters illegal and wrong remains unsettled. The role of Environment Ministry officials like Mr M Subba Rao in these matters has been a matter of great speculation.
The transfer of obsolete ships to developing countries like India, Bangladesh and Pakistan is in keeping with the US policy of ensuring migration of dirty industries, hazardous wastes and outdated technolgies from its country because it feels there is an impeccable (but insane) economic logic behind it (Courtesy: Lawrence Summers, Director of the White House's National Economic Council for the US President). This is done to escape deconatmination and worker's health care costs. That's why more than 300 such rotten ships are waiting in US alone to be dumped.
Meanwhile, Liau Siew Leng Operation Manager, Kiribati Ship Registry, Singapore is believed to have lodged a complaint with the Indian authortities in the case of fraudulent misrepresentation by the owners of Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence).
Sequence of events regarding Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) is revealing
Following the 2001 bankruptcy of American Hawaii Cruises, the owners of the American Hawaii Line, SS Independence became the property of the US Maritime Administration and sailed from Honolulu to San Francisco, arriving on 8 November 2001. In February 2003, SS Independence was sold at auction for US$4 million to Star Cruises/Norwegian Cruise Lines (NCL). On October 24, 2005, Star Cruises/Norwegian Cruise Line sold the Independence to a subsidiary company, named - “California Manufacturing Corporation”, coincidentally it has its offices in the Star Cruises/Norwegian Cruise Line Headquarters in Miami, Florida. In October 2005 itself, SS Independence was reregistered under a new name with details: IMO: 5160180 - Name: Oceanic - Call sign: KPHI - Registered: USA.
California Manufacturing Corporation claimed that the ship was sold to someone on July 26, 2007. It claims that there is a confidentiality document in place so they can not divulge the name of the buyer. Thus while the ship continued to fly a US flag, the last registered owner was California Manufacturing Corporation/Star Cruises/Norwegian Cruise Lines (NCL) and the new owner did not get it registered and has intentionally not revealed itself.
In February-March 2008, a letter to California Manufacturing Corporation by environmental groups hand delivered in Miami, Florida, which was accepted by Lillia Suarez, Assistant Administrator of Maritime Operations Department of Star Cruises/Norwegian Cruise Lines.
In July 2008, the ship Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) landed in Dubai and from there it came in Indian waters.
Chronology of the ownership of the ship Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) illustrates the designs of the owners to escape decontamination cost in their own country:
Years Owner
1951—1974: American Export Lines
1974—1979: Atlantic Far East Lines
1989—1982: American Hawaii Cruises
1982—1996: American Global Line
1996—2001: American Hawaii Cruises
2001—2003: United States Maritime Administration
2003—2005: California Manufacturing Corp/Norwegian Cruise Line/Star Cruises
2005: Norwegian Cruise Line/Star Cruises
2005—California Manufacturing Corp/Norwegian Cruise Line/Star Cruises
2006-July 2007-California Manufacturing Corp/Norwegian Cruise Line/Star Cruises
July 2007 -February 2008- Ship was berthed in San Francisco Bay, California
July 2007- 29 January 2009– Ship was owned by Global Shipping LLC & its affiliate Global Marketing Services
September 2009- Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) last registered at Republic of Kiribati in the name of M/s Platinum Investment Services Corporation in September with its last port shown as Dubai (as per misleading information supplied for the report of Central Technical Team, Indian Ministry of Environment Forests on the inspection of Ship “Platinum-II” anchored at Bhavnagar Anchorage Point, Gujarat dated 23 October, 2009).
October 2009- Leela Ship Recycling Pvt Ltd claims it has bought the ship from a Greek owner. A new Memorandum of Agreement entered (on 12.10.2009) by M/s Platinum Investment Corporation with another recycler namely Leela Ship Recyclers Pvt Ltd., Plot. No.2, Alang Ship Recycling Yard, in place of M/s Haryana Ship Demolition Pvt Ltd. A copy of the Transfer Deed along with NOC from M/s Hariyana Ship Demolition (P) Ltd (as per the report of the Gujarat Pollution Control Board)
November 2009- Indian environment ministry bans the beaching of the ship in Indian waters
November 2009- Leela Ship Recycling Pvt Ltd says it would rethink on buying the ship Platinum II and it is up to the "present owner" to decide its fate
December 2009- Platinum II remains in Indian waters with unknown ownership.
Now no one in India knows who is this present owner (or Greek owner).
In 1951, the 18,500-tonne ship, originally known as SS Independence and then SS Oceanic, registered in the US, underwent many changes until it surfaced as Platinum II. In September 2009, it was reportedly registered in the Republic of Kiribati, an island-nation in the Pacific Ocean, in the name of Platinum Investment Services Corporation, Liberia. The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) had levied penalties of $518,500 against Global Shipping LLC and its affiliate Global Shipping Marketing Systems Inc for ‘exporting’ the controversial ship for disposal outside the US, in violation of various laws. Norwegian Cruise Lines (NCL)/Star Cruise which sold the ship to GMS has a reputation for negligence and evasion of international and national environmental and safety laws. The website of GMS brags of buying and facilitating more than 100 ships per year being exported to Asia for scrapping. In February 2008, the dead US ship was towed out of US territorial waters and now it anchored off Gopnath, 40 nautical miles from Alang coast, on October 7, 2009.
The US government must be made to arrange for its return to the US and probe into acts of omission and commission of Norwegian Cruise Lines (NCL)/Star Cruise/-California Manufacturing Corporation and Anil Sharma's Global Shipping LLC and its affiliate Global Shipping Marketing Systems Inc. The deafening silence of US agencies like Maritime Administration, Coast Guard Investigative Service, National Transportation Safety Board and their connivance merits investigation as well.
The entire episode seems to build up a case for the investigation of documents of more than 200 ships that came to Alang (post September 6 & 11, 2007 order of the Supreme Court) to stop this malpractice and to bring the culprits who are making fake certificates of the post of registry and the conniving officials to book.
It is high time steps are taken to take the industry away from beach so that both the coastal environment of Alang beach is protected along with the occupational health of workers besides addressing the concerns of the local villagers and fishermen.
Warm Regards
Gopal Krishna
Mb: 9818089660
Blog: imowatch.blogpsot.com
Note: The role of connivance played by US Agencies ought to be taken note of. In the case of Platinum II, the US Maritime Administartion (MARAD) appers to be in complicity because it chose not to act despite an adverse order of US Environment Protection Agency (USEPA) against the ship. Earlier, the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) finished its investigative work with regard to SS Blue Lady (SS Norway, SS France) in 2003 and turned the ship back over to the Norwegian Cruise Line Limited (NCL)/Star Cruise. The NTSB chose not to reveal its findings about what caused the blast in SS Norway in Miami till the time the Indian Supreme Court delivered its final order on 6/11 September 2007. The US National Transportation Safety Board released its findings on October 29, 2007 wherein it charged Norwegian Cruise Line Limited (NCL)/Star Cruise under federal shipping laws with grossly negligent operation of the S.S. Norway. The US Department of Justice release noted that "S.S. NORWAY, itself, has been permanently removed from maritime service." The responses from US agencies seemed stage-managed by the company in question. R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida Acosta and Rear Admiral Robert S. Branham, Commander Seventh Coast Guard District, stated that the maritime industry will held accountable for marine safety. This appears to be mere lip-service. Acosta commended the investigative efforts of the U.S. Coast Guard Investigative Service, whose investigative efforts led to the charges in this case. It noteworthy that the ship was scrapped under the name Blue Lady in Alang, an Indian beach in Gujarat saving huge amount of decontamination cost for the company named Norwegian Cruise Lines (NCL)/Star Cruise/-California Manufacturing Corporation. In both the cases of Blue Lady and Platinum II, Norwegian Cruise Line Limited (NCL)/Star Cruise has been involved at some stage.
Mr Jairam Ramesh
Union Minister for Environment & Forests
Government of India
New Delhi
Subject- Implementation of order on US ship Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) & Alang's fake document factory
Dear Sir,
This is to inform you that despite your order on US Ship "Platinum -II"(SS Oceanic, SS Independence), dated November 9th, 2009, the dead US ship is still at the Anchorage Point at Bhavnagar, Gujarat. As of now no one know as to who owns Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence). This is the question that remains unanswered. It is not a question of one dead ship alone.
No one know who has signed the Memorandum of Agreement with whom, whether this ship is insured, who is attending the ship and who is the owner of the ship. Initially, there were two tugs with the dead ship which brought it in Indian waters but now one tug is missing. It appears that the environmental issue of the toxic dead US ship has turned into a matter of criminal conspiracy as well. Intelligence documents quoted in newspapers appear to be right in warning the concerned authorities about security concerns from fake documents being manufactured in Alang and elsewhere. Alang can be deemed as a cooking factory for fake documents. Questions which have been raised about the situation Alang in the current session of the parliament awaits answers from the government.
Meanhwhile, industry has also revealed its concerns. Vishnu Kumar Gupta, President, Alang Ship Recycling Industries Association, Bhavnagar notes that there is controversy over ownership. The Republic of Kiribati, where the ship was claimed to be registered has clarified that the papers filed with Indian authorities by the ship-owners were fake.
"The government has rejected this ship for fabrication of document. It's the first time that the this issue has come up though it is rampant -- ships are brought in without clear identification of the owners and the port of registration. It's important to correct this for the security of the country and the shipbreakers," said Pravin Nagarsheth, president of the Iron Steel Scrap and Shipbreaking Association of India as reported in The Times of India (10 November 2009).
Notably, as per Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) Inspection Reports and other documents submitted by GPCB and Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) to Central Technical Team constituted by Union Ministry of Environment & Forests, the US ship named ‘Platinum-II’ (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) with IMO No. 5160180 was towed by Tug – Barracuda-I from Dubai. The name of the Tug that towed Platinum-II is Barracuda-I (IMO No. 6717019). This tug too is not registered with Kiribati Ship Registry, Singapore
Komal Kant Sharma, the owner of Leela Ship Recycling Pvt Ltd had offered to buy the convicted and dead US ship Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence). As per the report of the Central Technical Team, the ship still had a US flag painted on its chimney.
In order dated November 9th, 2009, you had asked Gujarat Maritime Board to probe allegations that the ship had been brought into India with a falsified flag and registry, it appears that an inquiry by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alone would unearth the malpractices underway because GMB does not have the competence to deal with cases of fraudulent and criminal misrepresentation.
While the November 7, 2009 order of the union environment ministry has established that in the aftermath of the September 6 and Setember 11, 2007 order of the Supreme Court, the post of registry of most of more than 200 ships have not been properly investigated before desk clearance and the entry of dead and toxic ships in India. There is a need for ordering the investigation of the port of registry of all the dead ships that came at Alang after the somewaht ambiguous order of the Supreme Court dated September 6, 2007 and September 11, 2007 (apparently undermining the order of 14th October, 2003).
It creates a compelling logic to do so now both with regard to previous ships and any new ship in future. The intelligence reports too refer to threats to our environmental security and the current regulations seem to allow dead ships innocent passage through the entire stretch of Indian waters unscrutinized by the security agencies. Besides environmental security, maritime security, national security also seems to be a casualty. The minutes of the Inter-ministerial committee on shipbreaking (constituted by the Supreme Court) refers to security threats from the Alang based industry. It merits attention as well.
Indian government authorties and media fails once again in its reporting about the ownership of the obsolete US ship. Star Cruises/Norwegian Cruise Lines (NCL) has repeatedly created a corporate veil to flaunt the law. The ownership of Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) was transferred to a shell company known as California Manufacturing Corporation, which is located in the same building as Star Cruises/NCL in Miami, Florida. This company transferred the ownership to Global Shipping LLC & its affiliate Global Marketing Services. At no point was there any evidence that any Indian has bought the ship.
Repeating the mistakes committed by both government officials and media as in the case of Le Clemenceau, the French ship wherein they kept stating and reporting till the end tha the ship was owned by an Indian owner, in the Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) matter too it continued to report that it is owned by an Indian owner despite evidence to the contrary. The officials and the media did not rectify its errors at any moment even when it became abundantly clear the it was owned by the French company. In the present case of Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) too so far it has failed to make amends.
The story of Riky, the Danish ship, Le Clemenceau, SS Blue Lady and others creates a compelling need for investigating the ownership of the ship and the name of the country which owns it. The case of Riky merits special attention. First, a ship with dubious credentials left the shores of Denmark. Then a month later, Indian government allowed it to beach at Alang. On 23 April 2005, "Riky" arrived for scrapping at Alang under the jurisdiction of Gujarat Maritime Board. Even the flag under which the ship sailed in isn't perfectly clear. N B Deshmukh, Assistant Commissioner, Customs Division, Bhavnagar, Gujarat said that Riky was carrying the flag of Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (North Korea). However, the ship's admission into India was challenged in the Supreme Court alleging that the ship sailed in under the flag of Roxa, a non-existent "country". The case is still pending in the apex court. Even in this case the registration document for renaming the ship was fabricated to allow beaching in a bid to confuse the Danish authorities. Riky has since been dismantled but the issue of whether Government of India's decision to let in the ship enter Indian waters illegal and wrong remains unsettled. The role of Environment Ministry officials like Mr M Subba Rao in these matters has been a matter of great speculation.
The transfer of obsolete ships to developing countries like India, Bangladesh and Pakistan is in keeping with the US policy of ensuring migration of dirty industries, hazardous wastes and outdated technolgies from its country because it feels there is an impeccable (but insane) economic logic behind it (Courtesy: Lawrence Summers, Director of the White House's National Economic Council for the US President). This is done to escape deconatmination and worker's health care costs. That's why more than 300 such rotten ships are waiting in US alone to be dumped.
Meanwhile, Liau Siew Leng Operation Manager, Kiribati Ship Registry, Singapore is believed to have lodged a complaint with the Indian authortities in the case of fraudulent misrepresentation by the owners of Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence).
Sequence of events regarding Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) is revealing
Following the 2001 bankruptcy of American Hawaii Cruises, the owners of the American Hawaii Line, SS Independence became the property of the US Maritime Administration and sailed from Honolulu to San Francisco, arriving on 8 November 2001. In February 2003, SS Independence was sold at auction for US$4 million to Star Cruises/Norwegian Cruise Lines (NCL). On October 24, 2005, Star Cruises/Norwegian Cruise Line sold the Independence to a subsidiary company, named - “California Manufacturing Corporation”, coincidentally it has its offices in the Star Cruises/Norwegian Cruise Line Headquarters in Miami, Florida. In October 2005 itself, SS Independence was reregistered under a new name with details: IMO: 5160180 - Name: Oceanic - Call sign: KPHI - Registered: USA.
California Manufacturing Corporation claimed that the ship was sold to someone on July 26, 2007. It claims that there is a confidentiality document in place so they can not divulge the name of the buyer. Thus while the ship continued to fly a US flag, the last registered owner was California Manufacturing Corporation/Star Cruises/Norwegian Cruise Lines (NCL) and the new owner did not get it registered and has intentionally not revealed itself.
In February-March 2008, a letter to California Manufacturing Corporation by environmental groups hand delivered in Miami, Florida, which was accepted by Lillia Suarez, Assistant Administrator of Maritime Operations Department of Star Cruises/Norwegian Cruise Lines.
In July 2008, the ship Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) landed in Dubai and from there it came in Indian waters.
Chronology of the ownership of the ship Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) illustrates the designs of the owners to escape decontamination cost in their own country:
Years Owner
1951—1974: American Export Lines
1974—1979: Atlantic Far East Lines
1989—1982: American Hawaii Cruises
1982—1996: American Global Line
1996—2001: American Hawaii Cruises
2001—2003: United States Maritime Administration
2003—2005: California Manufacturing Corp/Norwegian Cruise Line/Star Cruises
2005: Norwegian Cruise Line/Star Cruises
2005—California Manufacturing Corp/Norwegian Cruise Line/Star Cruises
2006-July 2007-California Manufacturing Corp/Norwegian Cruise Line/Star Cruises
July 2007 -February 2008- Ship was berthed in San Francisco Bay, California
July 2007- 29 January 2009– Ship was owned by Global Shipping LLC & its affiliate Global Marketing Services
September 2009- Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) last registered at Republic of Kiribati in the name of M/s Platinum Investment Services Corporation in September with its last port shown as Dubai (as per misleading information supplied for the report of Central Technical Team, Indian Ministry of Environment Forests on the inspection of Ship “Platinum-II” anchored at Bhavnagar Anchorage Point, Gujarat dated 23 October, 2009).
October 2009- Leela Ship Recycling Pvt Ltd claims it has bought the ship from a Greek owner. A new Memorandum of Agreement entered (on 12.10.2009) by M/s Platinum Investment Corporation with another recycler namely Leela Ship Recyclers Pvt Ltd., Plot. No.2, Alang Ship Recycling Yard, in place of M/s Haryana Ship Demolition Pvt Ltd. A copy of the Transfer Deed along with NOC from M/s Hariyana Ship Demolition (P) Ltd (as per the report of the Gujarat Pollution Control Board)
November 2009- Indian environment ministry bans the beaching of the ship in Indian waters
November 2009- Leela Ship Recycling Pvt Ltd says it would rethink on buying the ship Platinum II and it is up to the "present owner" to decide its fate
December 2009- Platinum II remains in Indian waters with unknown ownership.
Now no one in India knows who is this present owner (or Greek owner).
In 1951, the 18,500-tonne ship, originally known as SS Independence and then SS Oceanic, registered in the US, underwent many changes until it surfaced as Platinum II. In September 2009, it was reportedly registered in the Republic of Kiribati, an island-nation in the Pacific Ocean, in the name of Platinum Investment Services Corporation, Liberia. The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) had levied penalties of $518,500 against Global Shipping LLC and its affiliate Global Shipping Marketing Systems Inc for ‘exporting’ the controversial ship for disposal outside the US, in violation of various laws. Norwegian Cruise Lines (NCL)/Star Cruise which sold the ship to GMS has a reputation for negligence and evasion of international and national environmental and safety laws. The website of GMS brags of buying and facilitating more than 100 ships per year being exported to Asia for scrapping. In February 2008, the dead US ship was towed out of US territorial waters and now it anchored off Gopnath, 40 nautical miles from Alang coast, on October 7, 2009.
The US government must be made to arrange for its return to the US and probe into acts of omission and commission of Norwegian Cruise Lines (NCL)/Star Cruise/-California Manufacturing Corporation and Anil Sharma's Global Shipping LLC and its affiliate Global Shipping Marketing Systems Inc. The deafening silence of US agencies like Maritime Administration, Coast Guard Investigative Service, National Transportation Safety Board and their connivance merits investigation as well.
The entire episode seems to build up a case for the investigation of documents of more than 200 ships that came to Alang (post September 6 & 11, 2007 order of the Supreme Court) to stop this malpractice and to bring the culprits who are making fake certificates of the post of registry and the conniving officials to book.
It is high time steps are taken to take the industry away from beach so that both the coastal environment of Alang beach is protected along with the occupational health of workers besides addressing the concerns of the local villagers and fishermen.
Warm Regards
Gopal Krishna
Mb: 9818089660
Blog: imowatch.blogpsot.com
Note: The role of connivance played by US Agencies ought to be taken note of. In the case of Platinum II, the US Maritime Administartion (MARAD) appers to be in complicity because it chose not to act despite an adverse order of US Environment Protection Agency (USEPA) against the ship. Earlier, the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) finished its investigative work with regard to SS Blue Lady (SS Norway, SS France) in 2003 and turned the ship back over to the Norwegian Cruise Line Limited (NCL)/Star Cruise. The NTSB chose not to reveal its findings about what caused the blast in SS Norway in Miami till the time the Indian Supreme Court delivered its final order on 6/11 September 2007. The US National Transportation Safety Board released its findings on October 29, 2007 wherein it charged Norwegian Cruise Line Limited (NCL)/Star Cruise under federal shipping laws with grossly negligent operation of the S.S. Norway. The US Department of Justice release noted that "S.S. NORWAY, itself, has been permanently removed from maritime service." The responses from US agencies seemed stage-managed by the company in question. R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida Acosta and Rear Admiral Robert S. Branham, Commander Seventh Coast Guard District, stated that the maritime industry will held accountable for marine safety. This appears to be mere lip-service. Acosta commended the investigative efforts of the U.S. Coast Guard Investigative Service, whose investigative efforts led to the charges in this case. It noteworthy that the ship was scrapped under the name Blue Lady in Alang, an Indian beach in Gujarat saving huge amount of decontamination cost for the company named Norwegian Cruise Lines (NCL)/Star Cruise/-California Manufacturing Corporation. In both the cases of Blue Lady and Platinum II, Norwegian Cruise Line Limited (NCL)/Star Cruise has been involved at some stage.
International Bunker Fuels, IMO & ICAO
IMO contributes 3.3 % of the total emission of global green house gases. In Copenhagen, at an event International Maritime Organization (IMO) and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) made presentations about their climate mitigations plans.
Miguel Palomares, IMO, opened the IMO section of the event, stating that shipping operates in a global environment and thus requires international regulation. He announced that the IMO has an emission reduction package ready for enactment and awaits guidance from the UNFCCC.
Karin Sjölin-Frudd, IMO, presented the IMO’s vision for climate change mitigation. She outlined the findings of the Second Greenhouse Gas Study, undertaken in 2009, which sets out that the sector must reduce its emissions and favors market-based instruments to do so.
Yap Ong Heng, Civil Aviation Authority of A number of issues were raised in the discussion, including the IMO's Singapore, outlined the outcomes of the ICAO-partnership with ICAO, the practical complexity of regulating the shipping hosted high-level meeting on aviation and
industry, and how revenues from a market-based instrument should be climate change.
used.
Robert Kobeh Gonzalez, President of ICAO Council, chaired a panel discussing ICAO’s efforts to regulate civil aviation's emission reductions. He stated that ICAO has adopted a global strategy on climate change, and looks to the COP to assist ICAO in coordinating the sectoral effort.
Other panelists outlined the recent ICAO-hosted high-level meeting on aviation and climate change that, among other things, endorsed an international programme on aviation and climate change, and led to recommendations on alternative fuels. One panelist underscored that while alternative fuels offer significant medium-term emission reductions, they must be socially and environmentally sustainable. To achieve emission reductions, panelists preferred market-based approaches in
tandem with scientifically-backed mitigation efforts.
Miguel Palomares, IMO, opened the IMO section of the event, stating that shipping operates in a global environment and thus requires international regulation. He announced that the IMO has an emission reduction package ready for enactment and awaits guidance from the UNFCCC.
Karin Sjölin-Frudd, IMO, presented the IMO’s vision for climate change mitigation. She outlined the findings of the Second Greenhouse Gas Study, undertaken in 2009, which sets out that the sector must reduce its emissions and favors market-based instruments to do so.
Yap Ong Heng, Civil Aviation Authority of A number of issues were raised in the discussion, including the IMO's Singapore, outlined the outcomes of the ICAO-partnership with ICAO, the practical complexity of regulating the shipping hosted high-level meeting on aviation and
industry, and how revenues from a market-based instrument should be climate change.
used.
Robert Kobeh Gonzalez, President of ICAO Council, chaired a panel discussing ICAO’s efforts to regulate civil aviation's emission reductions. He stated that ICAO has adopted a global strategy on climate change, and looks to the COP to assist ICAO in coordinating the sectoral effort.
Other panelists outlined the recent ICAO-hosted high-level meeting on aviation and climate change that, among other things, endorsed an international programme on aviation and climate change, and led to recommendations on alternative fuels. One panelist underscored that while alternative fuels offer significant medium-term emission reductions, they must be socially and environmentally sustainable. To achieve emission reductions, panelists preferred market-based approaches in
tandem with scientifically-backed mitigation efforts.
08/12/2009
Dead' US ship in Gujarat despite Centre's marching orders
New Delhi: Condemned US miltray ship 'Platinum-II' continues to be anchored off Alang in Gujarat waiting to be dismantled, despite the Centre ordering it on November 9, 2009 to return to its place of origin. 'Platinum-II' was called 'SS Oceanic' and 'SS Independence' before it was declared "dead" by the US naval administration.
The highly-contaminated ship entered Indian waters clandestinely waving a fake flag and using fake papers. Environmentalist Gopal Krishna, who is at the forefront of a legal battle againstbreaking of contaminated ships at Alang, said the 'Platinum-II' owner lied that the erstwhile warship was registered with Singapore-based Kiribati Ship Registry.
He said the registry's operations manager Liau Siew Leng told him on Saturday that neither 'Platinum-II' nor its tug 'Barracuda-I' was registered with them.
Krishna said Indian Captain Arun Kumar Das was the master of the tug that towed the "dead vehicle" from Dubai to Gujarat in complete disregard of maritime laws.Leng has already lodged a complaint with the Indian authorities pointing out irregularities by 'Platinum II', which, an environment ministry probe says, carries hazardous waste, including 238 tonnes of asbestos-containing material and polychlorinated biphenyl and radioactive material, besides 126 used lead batteries.
Krishna has sought a CBI inquiry into the illegal entry of at least 300 ailing ships to feed the ship-breaking industry in Gujarat.
Daily News & Analysis
Rakesh Bhatnagar
The highly-contaminated ship entered Indian waters clandestinely waving a fake flag and using fake papers. Environmentalist Gopal Krishna, who is at the forefront of a legal battle againstbreaking of contaminated ships at Alang, said the 'Platinum-II' owner lied that the erstwhile warship was registered with Singapore-based Kiribati Ship Registry.
He said the registry's operations manager Liau Siew Leng told him on Saturday that neither 'Platinum-II' nor its tug 'Barracuda-I' was registered with them.
Krishna said Indian Captain Arun Kumar Das was the master of the tug that towed the "dead vehicle" from Dubai to Gujarat in complete disregard of maritime laws.Leng has already lodged a complaint with the Indian authorities pointing out irregularities by 'Platinum II', which, an environment ministry probe says, carries hazardous waste, including 238 tonnes of asbestos-containing material and polychlorinated biphenyl and radioactive material, besides 126 used lead batteries.
Krishna has sought a CBI inquiry into the illegal entry of at least 300 ailing ships to feed the ship-breaking industry in Gujarat.
Daily News & Analysis
Rakesh Bhatnagar
Alang's Fake Document Factory
Note:Indian Supreme Court's order of 14th October, 2003 is a landmark order which can set things order but a revised order of 6 September, 2007 by the same court has created ambiguity that had opended the floodgates for dubious and hazardosu ships in Indian waters. In November 2009, some 12 ships entered Indian waters at Alang even as investigations are underway into the criminal conspiracy that led to the entry of the US ship Platinum II (SS Oceanic, SS Independence) in Indian waters. If there is rule of law in India, this ship will have to be sent back at the earliest. As of now no one know who has signed the Memorandum of Agreement, whether the ship is insured, who is attending the ship and who is the owner of the ship. Initially, there were two tugs with the ship but now one tug is missing. Notably, the environmental of the toxic US ship has turned into a matter of criminal conspiracy. Intelligence officials were right in warning the authorities about security concerns from fake documents being manufactured in Alang and elsewhere.
Alang can be deemed as a cooking factory for fake documents. Questions which have been raised about the situation Alang in the current session of the parliament awaits answers from the government.
Gopal Krishna
Where The Shipping Industry Discards Its Rubbish As Freight And Passenger Levels Slump
We Look at Ship-Breaking ……. Recycling, Commerce or Murder for Money?
INDIA – BANGLADESH – PAKISTAN – TURKEY –US - Along with all the other freight and shipping press we have documented the fall in bulk cargo and freight container levels over the past months. Anyone familiar with deep sea shipping knows that there now exist vessel parks around the coasts of the world where ships sit at anchor, with skeleton crews, due to overcapacity in the industry. New builds are postponed or cancelled and naturally owners with vast sums tied up in such vessels look to improve cashflow in such hard times.
So what happens when a vessel is worth more dead than alive? In the case of famous ships there is an emotional dilemma. This month there is a wringing of hands over the fate of the USS John F Kennedy, the last of a breed of non nuclear aircraft carriers, with a name that reeks of sentiment for the American people. There are cries to preserve the ship, bring her back to her pristine best, maybe transform her into a floating museum.
Such solutions are simply not practical for any normal vessel, and probably indeed for the carrier herself, at the point she becomes non viable there is really only one option, dismantling and use as scrap, salvaging all useable parts to become the raw materials which fuel manufacturing now that natural resources are dwindling and prohibitively expensive.
In Europe there still exist ship breaking specialists, companies like Fornaes Shipbreaking in Denmark who specialise in dismantling fishing boats and small coastal vessels. Like any European employer they are bound by a stringent code to ensure they maintain the strictest levels of health and safety for their staff. This seems to now be an established industry trend. Small, relatively local ships will be dismantled fairly close to their home ports for obvious reasons, but in the case of any larger vessel the ship will simply go to the highest bidder, and that means the one who can keep their costs to a minimum.
We highlighted recently the case of the Oceanic / Platinum II, a mystery vessel which appeared on the Indian coast awaiting destruction. We traced her back to a berth in San Francisco and found she was in fact the SS Independence, surreptitiously moved around the world before arriving for her execution at the hands of the Alang breakers. The latest news we have is that, having been refused permission to beach she still lies on her moorings awaiting a destination.
So why the cloak of mystery? Why not merely sell the ship on the open market and walk away? The answer is simply the amount of pollutants and toxic materials built into the ships of that era. And in Alang secrecy is the key to profits. We contacted literally dozens of ship breaking operators on the subcontinent for information and met with a total wall of silence. Alang is the heart of the industry, the infamous beach stretches along the west coast of the Gulf of Cambay and the reason for its success is simple. Twice a month the tide floods excessively, and cause more of the beach than usual to be under water. Then is the time to power up the engines and crash the doomed vessel into the beach at full speed. The tide recedes to a reasonable depth and workers flood up the hull, like industrious ants, immediately to start ripping and cutting off the fittings.
When you study the videos embedded within this piece, mostly gathered illicitly as the bosses want no publicity regarding working conditions, you may think of Dante’s vision of Hell or a film of a busy steelworks but nobody could help to be aware that the working practices leave a lot to be desired. Men lowering lit oxy acetylene torches to colleagues, cutting gear used with no eye protection, cables at full stretch pulling whole bulkheads away.
This however is not the worst of the problem. Shifts start at seven in the morning and go through till eleven at night with two hours in breaks. The work is done on or around the beach by unskilled labourers who travel from the poorest parts to work for a pittance, largely without any representation. Often there are no latrines or showers, and disease is rife. No work – no pay so they labour on with severe injuries and little chance of proper medical attention.
The sites see asbestos thrown freely about, the dust filling the air, the toxic smoke from metal cutting drifts amongst the workers. Heavy metals run freely into the sand along with the waste lubricants to wash out to sea. In Alang alone estimates state that 45 tonnes per day of waste, toxic to some degree, are lost in the beach.
The Geneva based International Metalworkers Federation, who published an extensive survey in 2007 on working practices in the region, estimates that in Bangladesh a worker dies in the breaking yards every three weeks on average. The organisation states that seven Bangladeshis died in one week in October this year. One was crushed in an accident, three from noxious fumes and three others crushed under a falling section of ships plate, one man only seventeen years old. Six men were burned to death in Alang on the fourth of August in an horrific accident which prompted calls for an enquiry, the Indian authorities do at least take a passing interest in the welfare of their people but this does not seem to have a measurable effect.
Dismantlers in the US, in places like Brownsville where the industry has been in place for over forty years, may be in secluded areas where cynics say they are beyond the reach of normal restrictions but they perform their duties under the watchful eyes of the US Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OHSA) who monitor performance constantly and working conditions are worlds apart from those of the subcontinent.
Turkey is yet another country where ship breaking is thriving. As we understand it, admittedly in this case from sources on the management side of the industry, conditions are somewhere between the two extremes of the US and places like Alang. Ships are broken in areas of non permeable flooring so that all noxious fluids can be gathered. Turkey, moving toward closer ties with the EU need to take heed of the DIVEST project, funded by the European Union to ensure member states ensure ships are disposed of properly, safely and with all environmental bases covered. Those interested in learning more about this initiative can follow the links to the relevant EU page here.
One thing all participant countries have within this industry is the desire to recycle absolutely everything they can. Unfortunately profit is the motive for most companies both selling, and breaking, ships. Global Marketing Systems (GMS), the US based ship purchasing agency and the largest cash buyers of defunct tonnage in the world operate in most of the major ship breaking zones including China. Their site gives a good breakdown of how different methods apply to each zone but obviously they have little or no control over what purchasers do with a vessel after they have taken possession. Recent reports that a ship bound for a Malaysian firm for use as a floating reservoir was being touted on the Indian and Pakistani breakers markets were recently highlighted by the company.
Once again it will require firm, concerted government action to ensure that conditions in the third world countries who take on more and more of this work treat all those involved in a humanitarian way and ensure they work in reasonable conditions. Individual states need to be compelled to comply with rulings like that of the Supreme Court of India acting on a case involving ship recycling in September 2007 where recommendations for the safe procedures necessary to dismantle vessels are clearly outlined.
http://www.handyshippingguide.com/shipping-news/where-the-shipping-industry-discards-its-rubbish-as-freight-and-passenger-levels-slump_995
Alang can be deemed as a cooking factory for fake documents. Questions which have been raised about the situation Alang in the current session of the parliament awaits answers from the government.
Gopal Krishna
Where The Shipping Industry Discards Its Rubbish As Freight And Passenger Levels Slump
We Look at Ship-Breaking ……. Recycling, Commerce or Murder for Money?
INDIA – BANGLADESH – PAKISTAN – TURKEY –US - Along with all the other freight and shipping press we have documented the fall in bulk cargo and freight container levels over the past months. Anyone familiar with deep sea shipping knows that there now exist vessel parks around the coasts of the world where ships sit at anchor, with skeleton crews, due to overcapacity in the industry. New builds are postponed or cancelled and naturally owners with vast sums tied up in such vessels look to improve cashflow in such hard times.
So what happens when a vessel is worth more dead than alive? In the case of famous ships there is an emotional dilemma. This month there is a wringing of hands over the fate of the USS John F Kennedy, the last of a breed of non nuclear aircraft carriers, with a name that reeks of sentiment for the American people. There are cries to preserve the ship, bring her back to her pristine best, maybe transform her into a floating museum.
Such solutions are simply not practical for any normal vessel, and probably indeed for the carrier herself, at the point she becomes non viable there is really only one option, dismantling and use as scrap, salvaging all useable parts to become the raw materials which fuel manufacturing now that natural resources are dwindling and prohibitively expensive.
In Europe there still exist ship breaking specialists, companies like Fornaes Shipbreaking in Denmark who specialise in dismantling fishing boats and small coastal vessels. Like any European employer they are bound by a stringent code to ensure they maintain the strictest levels of health and safety for their staff. This seems to now be an established industry trend. Small, relatively local ships will be dismantled fairly close to their home ports for obvious reasons, but in the case of any larger vessel the ship will simply go to the highest bidder, and that means the one who can keep their costs to a minimum.
We highlighted recently the case of the Oceanic / Platinum II, a mystery vessel which appeared on the Indian coast awaiting destruction. We traced her back to a berth in San Francisco and found she was in fact the SS Independence, surreptitiously moved around the world before arriving for her execution at the hands of the Alang breakers. The latest news we have is that, having been refused permission to beach she still lies on her moorings awaiting a destination.
So why the cloak of mystery? Why not merely sell the ship on the open market and walk away? The answer is simply the amount of pollutants and toxic materials built into the ships of that era. And in Alang secrecy is the key to profits. We contacted literally dozens of ship breaking operators on the subcontinent for information and met with a total wall of silence. Alang is the heart of the industry, the infamous beach stretches along the west coast of the Gulf of Cambay and the reason for its success is simple. Twice a month the tide floods excessively, and cause more of the beach than usual to be under water. Then is the time to power up the engines and crash the doomed vessel into the beach at full speed. The tide recedes to a reasonable depth and workers flood up the hull, like industrious ants, immediately to start ripping and cutting off the fittings.
When you study the videos embedded within this piece, mostly gathered illicitly as the bosses want no publicity regarding working conditions, you may think of Dante’s vision of Hell or a film of a busy steelworks but nobody could help to be aware that the working practices leave a lot to be desired. Men lowering lit oxy acetylene torches to colleagues, cutting gear used with no eye protection, cables at full stretch pulling whole bulkheads away.
This however is not the worst of the problem. Shifts start at seven in the morning and go through till eleven at night with two hours in breaks. The work is done on or around the beach by unskilled labourers who travel from the poorest parts to work for a pittance, largely without any representation. Often there are no latrines or showers, and disease is rife. No work – no pay so they labour on with severe injuries and little chance of proper medical attention.
The sites see asbestos thrown freely about, the dust filling the air, the toxic smoke from metal cutting drifts amongst the workers. Heavy metals run freely into the sand along with the waste lubricants to wash out to sea. In Alang alone estimates state that 45 tonnes per day of waste, toxic to some degree, are lost in the beach.
The Geneva based International Metalworkers Federation, who published an extensive survey in 2007 on working practices in the region, estimates that in Bangladesh a worker dies in the breaking yards every three weeks on average. The organisation states that seven Bangladeshis died in one week in October this year. One was crushed in an accident, three from noxious fumes and three others crushed under a falling section of ships plate, one man only seventeen years old. Six men were burned to death in Alang on the fourth of August in an horrific accident which prompted calls for an enquiry, the Indian authorities do at least take a passing interest in the welfare of their people but this does not seem to have a measurable effect.
Dismantlers in the US, in places like Brownsville where the industry has been in place for over forty years, may be in secluded areas where cynics say they are beyond the reach of normal restrictions but they perform their duties under the watchful eyes of the US Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OHSA) who monitor performance constantly and working conditions are worlds apart from those of the subcontinent.
Turkey is yet another country where ship breaking is thriving. As we understand it, admittedly in this case from sources on the management side of the industry, conditions are somewhere between the two extremes of the US and places like Alang. Ships are broken in areas of non permeable flooring so that all noxious fluids can be gathered. Turkey, moving toward closer ties with the EU need to take heed of the DIVEST project, funded by the European Union to ensure member states ensure ships are disposed of properly, safely and with all environmental bases covered. Those interested in learning more about this initiative can follow the links to the relevant EU page here.
One thing all participant countries have within this industry is the desire to recycle absolutely everything they can. Unfortunately profit is the motive for most companies both selling, and breaking, ships. Global Marketing Systems (GMS), the US based ship purchasing agency and the largest cash buyers of defunct tonnage in the world operate in most of the major ship breaking zones including China. Their site gives a good breakdown of how different methods apply to each zone but obviously they have little or no control over what purchasers do with a vessel after they have taken possession. Recent reports that a ship bound for a Malaysian firm for use as a floating reservoir was being touted on the Indian and Pakistani breakers markets were recently highlighted by the company.
Once again it will require firm, concerted government action to ensure that conditions in the third world countries who take on more and more of this work treat all those involved in a humanitarian way and ensure they work in reasonable conditions. Individual states need to be compelled to comply with rulings like that of the Supreme Court of India acting on a case involving ship recycling in September 2007 where recommendations for the safe procedures necessary to dismantle vessels are clearly outlined.
http://www.handyshippingguide.com/shipping-news/where-the-shipping-industry-discards-its-rubbish-as-freight-and-passenger-levels-slump_995
29/11/2009
Was Alang on Headley's to-bomb list?
Bhavnagar/Ahmedabad: A team of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of US is likely to visit Alang on Tuesday to survey spots where terror mastermind David Headley and his associate Tahawwur Hussain Rana allegedly visited while planning terror attacks.
While officials were tightlipped about any such development, sources said the team of FBI officials is expected to visit sites in Alang, famous for ship-breaking yards, which Headley and Rana had visited, while planning terror attacks. Among other places in the state, Headley had visited Ahmedabad and Surat last year. When contacted, Gujarat ATS chief Ajay Tomar denied having information about FBI sleuths' visit.
Both Headley and Rana, believed to have links with Lashkar-e-Toiba, were arrested by FBI last month for plotting terror attacks in India. Their involvement in Mumbai and other terror attacks in the country is being probed by law enforcement agencies.
According to sources, the National Investigation Agency (NIA), formed in the wake of 26/11 Mumbai terror attack, had also stayed put in the state for three days last week to survey various spots the terror masterminds are believed to have visited to identity possible targets for their next strikes.
Meanwhile, Bhavnagar police conducted one of its biggest combing operations in over two decades in Alang, on Saturday night. This was following intelligence inputs to check the area for doubtful visits of Pakistani nationals and Bangladeshi intruders.
Nearly 350 police personnel searched more than 3500 shelters of workers employed in ship-breaking units in Alang as part of the operation.
When contacted, Superintendent of Police (SP) Bhavnagar, Rajendra Asari, said, "Migrant labourers coming from Assam, Orissa, Bihar and Jharkhand are working in Alang. The purpose of combing was to trace out illegal intruders from other countries, who might be staying as labourers." However, he said that no person was booked during the operation.
Sources said police was zeroing in on people who might have links with Naxalite movement as many workers in Alang hail from states where the movement is active.
Mehboob Kureshi & Vivek Vijayapalan / DNA
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Ship-breakers asked to maintain register of Alang workers
AHMEDABAD: Bhavnagar's Alang ship-breaking yard, considered to be one of the biggest in Asia, is in terror crosshairs, feel intelligence officials.
To strengthen security of the coastal area, district police officials have issued a notification to maintain a proper register of the workers at various ship-breaking plots with immediate effect.
According to state police, they are taking the threat from the sea seriously. Alang, as an industry itself, employs over 40,000 workers from other states. According to officials, terrorists can tap this resource by disguising themselves as sundry workers to gather intelligence or use them for the purpose.
Bhavnagar police has asked the ship-breakers and state maritime board officials to keep a register temporary and permanent with details, including name, permanent address, age, native, identification mark, employer and a photograph.
Source said that a combing operation has been undertaken by police and intelligence agencies officials from Saturday where a number of workers have been screened for their record.
Rajendra Asari, superintendent of police, Bhavnagar, told TOI that once the record is compiled, cops can check physical presence during a surprise check and verify it with the employer. "At the moment, it is difficult to screen every person as it would take a lot of time. There is no official system in place. With the new system, data can be compiled and updated at regular basis," he said.
Cops added that a number of activities have taken place earlier at the breaking yard that makes the place vulnerable. "It has national links ships come from all over the world for breaking and we have found goods such as cocaine and ivory from the coastal town in recent past," said the official.
New coastal police station to come up at Alang
Bhavnagar district has 160-km coastline and a police chowky of marine police. Bhavnagar police indicated a recent development where Alang will be provided with a police station of marine police. As part of strengthening coastal security, a number of places have been selected to establish police base, said senior state police officials.
Prashant Dayal,
The Times of India
24 November 2009
While officials were tightlipped about any such development, sources said the team of FBI officials is expected to visit sites in Alang, famous for ship-breaking yards, which Headley and Rana had visited, while planning terror attacks. Among other places in the state, Headley had visited Ahmedabad and Surat last year. When contacted, Gujarat ATS chief Ajay Tomar denied having information about FBI sleuths' visit.
Both Headley and Rana, believed to have links with Lashkar-e-Toiba, were arrested by FBI last month for plotting terror attacks in India. Their involvement in Mumbai and other terror attacks in the country is being probed by law enforcement agencies.
According to sources, the National Investigation Agency (NIA), formed in the wake of 26/11 Mumbai terror attack, had also stayed put in the state for three days last week to survey various spots the terror masterminds are believed to have visited to identity possible targets for their next strikes.
Meanwhile, Bhavnagar police conducted one of its biggest combing operations in over two decades in Alang, on Saturday night. This was following intelligence inputs to check the area for doubtful visits of Pakistani nationals and Bangladeshi intruders.
Nearly 350 police personnel searched more than 3500 shelters of workers employed in ship-breaking units in Alang as part of the operation.
When contacted, Superintendent of Police (SP) Bhavnagar, Rajendra Asari, said, "Migrant labourers coming from Assam, Orissa, Bihar and Jharkhand are working in Alang. The purpose of combing was to trace out illegal intruders from other countries, who might be staying as labourers." However, he said that no person was booked during the operation.
Sources said police was zeroing in on people who might have links with Naxalite movement as many workers in Alang hail from states where the movement is active.
Mehboob Kureshi & Vivek Vijayapalan / DNA
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Ship-breakers asked to maintain register of Alang workers
AHMEDABAD: Bhavnagar's Alang ship-breaking yard, considered to be one of the biggest in Asia, is in terror crosshairs, feel intelligence officials.
To strengthen security of the coastal area, district police officials have issued a notification to maintain a proper register of the workers at various ship-breaking plots with immediate effect.
According to state police, they are taking the threat from the sea seriously. Alang, as an industry itself, employs over 40,000 workers from other states. According to officials, terrorists can tap this resource by disguising themselves as sundry workers to gather intelligence or use them for the purpose.
Bhavnagar police has asked the ship-breakers and state maritime board officials to keep a register temporary and permanent with details, including name, permanent address, age, native, identification mark, employer and a photograph.
Source said that a combing operation has been undertaken by police and intelligence agencies officials from Saturday where a number of workers have been screened for their record.
Rajendra Asari, superintendent of police, Bhavnagar, told TOI that once the record is compiled, cops can check physical presence during a surprise check and verify it with the employer. "At the moment, it is difficult to screen every person as it would take a lot of time. There is no official system in place. With the new system, data can be compiled and updated at regular basis," he said.
Cops added that a number of activities have taken place earlier at the breaking yard that makes the place vulnerable. "It has national links ships come from all over the world for breaking and we have found goods such as cocaine and ivory from the coastal town in recent past," said the official.
New coastal police station to come up at Alang
Bhavnagar district has 160-km coastline and a police chowky of marine police. Bhavnagar police indicated a recent development where Alang will be provided with a police station of marine police. As part of strengthening coastal security, a number of places have been selected to establish police base, said senior state police officials.
Prashant Dayal,
The Times of India
24 November 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
