Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Committee Report
&
to draw Action Plan for Acquisition of
Tier 1 Capabilities by the Ports
BY
29 August 2013
Contents
Foreword
Executive Summary
1. Introduction 1
5. Stakeholder Consultations 38
7. Private OSRO 61
8. Places of Refuge 70
11. Recommendations 92
12. Conclusion 99
Executive Summary
1. About 28,000 vessels of various sizes and types call at Indian Ports
annually. About 192 million tons of persistent oil excluding oil products is
annually imported through oil tankers at major and non major ports including
the coastal movements and most of the eighty spills in Indian waters since
1980 have occurred in port waters.
2. The National Oil Spill Disaster Contingency Plan (NOSDCP) mandates the
maintenance of an oil spill contingency plan by port facilities and an inventory
of oil spill response equipment to respond to oil spills within jurisdiction.
4. The Committee to implement the decision of the 14th MSDC Meeting was
constituted by the Ministry of Shipping (Ports Wing) on 11th March 2013. The
Committee was also mandated to review the collection and remittance of oil
pollution cess in each port, suggest steps to strengthen the cess collection, and
make recommendations on the adequacy of oil cess being collected and
recommend increase if need be.
5. The Committee convened its first meeting on 21st March 2013 and
several times thereafter. The Committee also held stakeholder consultation
meetings on 4th and 12th July 2013 at Mumbai and Chennai respectively. The
committee subsequently reviewed its work on 1st August 2013 and discussed
the draft report on 22nd August 2013.
7. The Committee observed that there has been undue delay in framing
enabling legislation for OPRC 1990 which is making its enforcement through
the NOSDCP extremely difficult. The Committee observed that the Indian Coast
Guard Act, Indian Ports Act or Environment Act also make no reference to
OPRC 1990. This likely impacts the establishment of oil spill response
equipment stockpiles, reimbursement of response costs, augmenting training
programs, and improving salvage services.
10. In contrast to the foreign ports, the status review by the Committee
indicated a deficiency of equipment and trained manpower vis--vis the risk
categorization of ports. Despite all stakeholders being notified and encouraged
to participate in the training program conducted cost-free by the Coast Guard,
all ports do not have adequate trained manpower for tier 1 oil spill response.
Only three of the twelve major ports were revealed to have an oil spill
ii
Ushering a Step Change
contingency plan approved by the Coast Guard. The joint inspections are also
periodic, and irregular.
11. The Committee noted that the tier 1 preparedness of ports is routinely
reviewed and deliberated at the NOSDCP meetings. However, despite several
decisions and reviews at various levels of the Government, progress on
contingency planning including maintenance of tier 1 pollution response
inventory at ports has been far from desirable.
13. The Committee further reviewed associated measures for oil spill
response preparedness such as radar oil spill detection at sea ports and oil
handling facilities, pre-booming, private OSRO concept, and Indias
contribution to the IOPC Fund.
14. The Committee felt that it is essential for sea ports to acquire radar oil
spill detection capability either by way of IMO type approved SOLAS compliant
radar or by installing software patch on existing radar.
15. The Committee was appraised that though being an important preventive
measure, pre-booming is not practiced at any of the 16 SPMs located or ports,
except for oil berths at Karaikal, Tuticorin, Chennai, Ennore and
Visakhapatnam port and permanent boom on dockside at Sikka Reliance
terminal. Constraints cited were strong currents and tidal streams as also
swing of tanker at SPM with tide change. The Committee agreed that
instituting an equivalent measure of protection was imperative regardless of
any challenges. In respect of SPMs, the Committee feels that a possible
solution lies in stationing a suitable oil spill response craft during cargo
discharge in vicinity for immediate response and allowing relaxation only where
permissible. Further, pre-booming may be implemented at oil berths in
Mumbai and Kochi.
16. The Committee studied the subject of oil pollution cess in considerable
detail. It emerged that the cess being collected for the past twenty-five years at
iii
Ushering a Step Change
the nominal rate of 50 paise per tonne has never been utilized for the intended
purposes of providing oil reception facilities and equipments and materials for
combating oil pollution at various ports in India. Consultations with
stakeholders revealed numerous irregularities. In some cases the levy is not
being collected, and sometimes, even if collected, it has not been deposited.
There are also cases where a wrong account number was mentioned and
deposited. There is no procedure for acknowledgement of deposit. The
Committee could not ascertain whether administrative charges are deducted on
uniform basis. The Committee does not also rule out the possibility of leakage
of revenue due to the irregularities. The Committee concluded that despite
statutory provisions in the MS Act, 1958, there is no effective monitoring
mechanism either of the levy, or collection, or deposit of cess into the Central
Government Account. The Committee strongly advises the Ministry of Shipping
to develop and implement a Scheme so that all ports will be equipped with the
requisite tier 1 capability. The Committee has also deliberated about the
potential of developing tier1 capabilities at smaller ports, where on account of
the limited cargo handled revenue generated is insufficient to afford the
significant financial liability of required capabilities. Consequent to the review,
the Committee has suggested a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure
(SOP) for cess collection.
17. The Committee further reviewed the cess collection practices in select
countries including China, New Zealand, Canada, and United States and
opines that an exclusive Fund may be maintained to run a countrys maritime
oil pollution preparedness and response system regardless of being party to the
Fund and Supplementary Fund Convention. A reasonable amount of one time
cess could be levied to create a corpus. A differential levy may be imposed on
domestic and foreign flagged vessels including an annual levy on domestic
vessels and per voyage, per port levy on foreign flagged vessels. Levy may also
be imposed on vessels other than tankers and even offshore oil installations,
pipelines and oil exploration wells. The oil pollution cess of 50 paise per tonne
imposed in India and the corpus thereby generated is negligible compared to
the levy imposed by other nations and merits upward revision.
18. The Committee recalled the oil spill incidents of m.v. MSC Chitra in
August 2010 and m.v. Rak Carrier in the following year, which indicated lack
of adequate oil pollution preparedness by all the stakeholders. Any large oil
spill will incur mobilisation of large number of vessels, manpower, and
equipment for salvage of oil, legal support for claims, etc. which the Committee
iv
Ushering a Step Change
19. The Committee took note of the recent incidents of m.v. Pratibha Tapi
and m.v. Pratibha Indrayani with roughly 100-150 tons of fuel each which have
necessitated priority identification of places of refuge in Indian waters. Both
vessels were stranded off Mumbai harbor for nearly six months each until the
Honble Bombay High Court intervened to ensure that the vessels were towed
to safety or disposed. The Committee also noted with concern that the issue of
identifying suitable places of refuge on the coasts of India has been pending for
implementation for nearly ten years now since adoption of Guidelines on Places
of Refuge by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) in December 2003.
Given that places of refuge is an important aspect of contingency planning, the
Committee proposes that two unused/ disused ports each on the west and east
coast may be designated as places of refuge viz., Sachana in Gujarat,
Thalassery in Kerala, Chandipur in Odisha, and Bheemunipatnam in Andhra
Pradesh on the east coast of India. It may also be necessary to designate an
additional place on Maharashtra coast to cater to any incident in the high
traffic density port of Mumbai.
20. The Committee was appraised that as a State party to the Fund, India
stands particularly disadvantaged. Despite being a State party since inception,
India has never claimed any compensation whatsoever from either the 1971 or
the 1992 Fund whereas its current contributions of over 12% share of total
receipts in the year 2011 is second only to Japan. Moreover, principles of
fairness and equity are possibly at stake on account of the exemption to States
receiving oil below 150,000 ton threshold, usage of quantity of oil receipts as
the sole determinant of contribution to the Fund despite at least eighteen other
factors contributing to the risk and significant regional variations in cleanup
costs. It is the considered opinion of the Committee that perhaps it is
incumbent upon India to propose a fresh formula to the IOPC Fund, possibly
v
Ushering a Step Change
linked to the cleanup costs, and seek compliance with time honored principles
of fairness and equity.
21. To conclude, the Committee has carefully studied all the elements of
terms of references mandated by the Ministry of Shipping. The Committee has
been candid in its evaluation of the status of contingency plans, the inventory
holdings and availability of skilled manpower for oil spill response at the ports.
Taking a holistic view, the Committee consciously dwelled on the related
aspects of cess collection, legislation, private OSRO, wreck removal, places of
refuge and compensation for oil pollution damages.
22. The Committee urges that its wide ranging recommendations may be
implemented in earnest by the Ministry of Shipping to usher a step change in
the tier 1 oil spill response capabilities of the major and non-major ports in
India.
vi
Introduction 1
1. The Indian Ocean is one of the most important trade and energy
waterways in the world. It carries half the world's container shipments, one-
third of the bulk cargo traffic and two thirds of the oil shipments. The Indian
Ocean also connects the key flow of energy trade from the oil and gas
producers in the Western Indian Ocean to the consumer economies in South
Asia as well as in East Asia through the Eastern Indian Ocean. With global
energy needs expected to rise by 45 per cent by 2030, the trade and energy sea
lanes of communication (SLOCs) in the Indian Ocean are acquiring new
salience and creating fresh challenges in preserving and protecting the
maritime environment. This chapter dwells on the risk of oil spills at ports, the
formation of the Committee and its deliberations, and concludes with the
structure of the report.
2. India has 7,516.6 kilometers of coastline with 12 major ports and about
176 non-major ports. About 192 million tons of persistent oil excluding oil
products is imported into India through tankers annually. Several major oil
handling agencies and refineries are situated inside the sensitive Gulf of Kutch
which handles about 60 percent of the crude oil imported into India. Oil
exploration wells are developed at West coast and East coast and they
contribute about 35 million tons of oil, which again is brought into ports
through ships and pipelines. Consequently, there is an unprecedented increase
in the fleet of vessels visiting Indian shores. The rapid expansion in the port
sector and the corresponding high traffic intensity pose an enhanced risk of an
oil spill incident, particularly given the fact that roughly a third of the cargo
volumes would be crude oil.
3. In fact, over the past two decades, with sustained economic growth in the
Asian region, the country has been witnessing a significant rise in volume of
traffic in Indian coastal waters. Over a thousand merchant vessels transit
through Indian waters on any given day and about 28,000 vessels of various
sizes and types call at Indian ports annually. The ports are increasingly getting
crowded with the merchant ships and fishing, sailing, and offshore service
vessels. Statistical information indicates that over 3,00,000 fishing vessels of
Ushering a Step Change
various sizes and types are engaged in fishing operations in the coastal waters
of India that are highly congested and dangerous to safety of navigation.
5. The projections for the growth in seaborne trade on the Indian shores
during the next decade are heartening to note from the social, political and
economical point of view. But, the corresponding potential threat due to
transportation of a large quantity of oil may offset the advantages that we may
have envisaged, if proactive steps to strengthen our defenses against oil
pollution from ships are not taken, particularly in ports. Pollution from a
collision, sinking, stranding, and other marine accidents can threaten marine
life in the inter-tidal zones with possible consequential economic damage due
to loss to fishing grounds, and pollution of tourist beaches.
6. The Indian coasts witness an average of five spills every year as against
the world average of 2.5 spills.1 The past oil spills have ranged in size from
10 to 800 tons and a major proportion of the spills has occurred inside the port
limits. The ports capability for oil spill response are limited, and in the absence
of any clean-up agencies to undertake oil spill response on behalf of the
polluter, the Indian Coast Guard has usually been looked up to for undertaking
oil spill response, wherever the spill may have occurred. Oil spill response
could be a long and arduous task and require large amount of resources and
trained manpower. A major oil spill could affect several areas around a port,
making it quite challenging to coordinate activities amongst a number of
agencies.
7. The oil pollution incidents experienced in the recent past along the coast
of India within the port limits necessitate the maintenance of a preparedness
and response mechanism to combat any unforeseen oil spill disasters, and
mitigate its impact on the environment and affected communities. The
NOSDCP mandates the maintenance of an oil spill contingency plan by port
facilities and an inventory of oil spill response equipment to respond to oil
1
International Tanker Owner Pollution Federation 2010 Report
2
Ushering a Step Change
10. A review, thereafter, at the 14th MSDC Officers' level meeting held on
7th January 2013 revealed that three coastal states had formed State Maritime
Boards, and in the remaining coastal States, the process of formation of such
Boards was at an advanced stage. It was resolved to expedite the formation of
such Boards in the ensuing financial year. State Maritime Boards were
requested to handle matters related to coastal shipping and inland waterways
also, so that a single nodal agency would handle all maritime sector related
3
Ushering a Step Change
issues. The meeting also decided that the Ministry of Shipping may review the
current status of pollution control equipment (tier 1 level) available at major
and non-major ports in India at the Ministry level. Appropriate action plan was
to be prepared for reaching the desired level of preparedness. In the
subsequent meeting chaired by the Honble Shipping Minister on 8th January
2013, it was decided to evolve new central schemes for providing assistance to
State Maritime Boards in the area of capacity building to combat oil spills and
oil pollution.
Formation of Committee
4
Ushering a Step Change
13. As per the Order, the Committee was required to submit its report within
30 days from the date of issue of Orders.
14. The Chairman, National Shipping Board convened the first meeting of
the committee on 21st March 2013 in his chambers at Transport Bhavan, New
Delhi and thereafter on 8th April 2013, 20th May 2013, 11th June 2013. The
meeting with stakeholders was held on 4th July 2013 at Board Room, Mumbai
Port Trust. Representatives from the coastal states of Western region attended
the meeting and explained the tier 1 preparedness of ports in their respective
states. A meeting with stakeholders on east coast was held at Chennai on 12th
July 2013 wherein representatives from coastal states of east coast of India
delivered presentations on the tier-1 preparedness of ports in their respective
jurisdiction. Consequent to the stakeholder consultations, the committee
reviewed its work in a meeting on 1st August 2013. The draft report of the
Committee was deliberated on 22nd August 2013.
15. The ensuing chapters discuss the international conventions and national
legislations, mandated requirement and capabilities at ports in select
countries, the tier 1 preparedness of ports, record of stakeholder consultations,
oil pollution cess, private OSRO, places of refuge, removal of wrecks, review of
contribution to IOPC Fund, and our experience in responding to oil spill
incidents in ports.
5
International Conventions and
National Legislation 2
Introduction
Marine Environment
Protection
MARPOL Annex I 02.10.1983 24.12.1986 Enacted and Inadequate
relevant rules
updated
Dumping 1972 30.08.1975 Not ratified Ratification and Inadequate
enactment under
consideration
OPRC 1990 13.05.1995 17.02.1998 Enactment in Inadequate
process
Intervention 1969 06.05.1975 14.09.2000 Part reference in act Inadequate
Salvage 1989 14.07.1996 18.10.1996 Enactment in Inadequate
process
Liability Regime
LLMC 1976 01.12.1986 01.12.2002 Enacted None
LLMC 1996(P) 13.05.2004 10.01.2011 Rules framing at None
advance stage
CLC 1992 30.05.1996 15.11.2000 Enacted and 2008 None
rules being revised
FUND 1992 30.05.1996 21.06.2001 Enacted and 2008 None
rules being revised
FUND 2003 03.03.2005 Not ratified None None
Bunkers 2001 21.11.2008 Not ratified Ratification and None
enactment under
consideration
Wreck Removal 2007 Not in force 10.01.2011 Enactment is at None
advance stage
HNS 1996(2010P) Not in force Not ratified Partly covered All provisions
through ISM Code are not covered
and contingency
plan
Regime of Maritime In force Ratified by --- All provisions
Ports 1923 India are not covered
Basel Convention on In force Not ratified ---- None
Hazardous Wastes
7
Ushering a Step Change
5. This ensures that ship is adequately and safely manned with master,
officers and ratings with appropriate skills and experience to ensure safe
operations of ships under all conditions and as a result contributes to the
8
Ushering a Step Change
9
Ushering a Step Change
Section Remarks
356 A Application to ships and incidents at high seas
356 B Definitions as per MARPOL, 1973/78 and UNCLOS, 1982
356 C Issue of Pollution Prevention Certificate
356 D Issue of certificates to foreign ships in India and Indian ships in foreign countries
356 E Requirements for construction and equipments in ships
356 F Record Books for Indian oil tanker or other Indian ship
356 G Inspection and control of oil tankers and other ships
356 H Information regarding contravention of MARPOL, 1973/78
356 I Reception facilities at ports in India
356 J Power to give notice to owner of polluting ship
356 K Power to take measures for preventing pollution
356 L Power of CG to give directions to certain ships to render certain services
356 M Oil pollution cess at 50 paisa per ton of cargo carried in bulk by oil tankers
356 N Refusal of Port clearance to ships not paying oil cess
10. The Indian Ports and the Major Ports Acts are the primary legislations to
give complete affect to the relevant provisions of the MARPOL 73/78. These
acts have power making rules and byelaws for effective implementation and
enforcement. There is no uniformity adopted by major and non-major port in
this regard. The applicable provisions in this regard specified in the Indian
Ports Act, and the Major Port Trust Act are stated below.
11. The relevant provisions of the Indian Ports Act are specified below.
Section 6 (ee) for regulating the manner in which oil or water mixed with oil shall
be discharged in any such port and for the disposal of the same;
Section 6 (eee) - for regulating the bunkering of vessels with liquid fuel in any
such port and the description of barges, pipe lines or tank vehicles to be
employed in such bunkering;
(a) No ballast or rubbish and no other thing likely to form a bank or shoal or to
be detrimental to navigation, shall, without lawful excuse, be cast or thrown into
any such port or into or upon any place or shore from which the same is liable to
be washed into any such port, either by ordinary or high tides, or by storms or
land-floods (and no oil or water mixed with oil shall be discharged in or into any
such port, to which any rules made under clause (ee) of Rule 6 apply.
(b) Any person who by himself or another so casts or throws any ballast or
rubbish or any such other thing or so discharges any oil or water mixed with oil
and the master of nay vessel from which the same is so cast, thrown or
discharged, shall be punishable with fine, which may extend to five lakh rupees
and shall pay any reasonable expenses which may be incurred in removing the
same.
(c) If, after receiving notice from the conservator of the port to desist from so
casting or throwing any ballast or rubbish or such other thing or from so
discharging any oil or water mixed with oil, any master continues so to cast
11
Ushering a Step Change
throw or discharge the same, he shall also be liable to simple imprisonment for a
term which may exceed to one year and to fine which may extend to five lakh
rupees.
(d) Nothing in this section applies to any case in which the ballast or rubbish
or such other thing is cast or thrown into, or the oil or water mixed with oil is
discharged in or into, any such port with the consent in writing of the conservator,
or within any limits within which such act may be authorized by the Government.
If any person graves, breams or smokes any vessel in any such port, contrary to
the directions of the conservator, or at any time or within any limits at or within
which such act is prohibited by the Government, he and the master of the vessel
shall for every such offence be punishable with fine which may extend to five
hundred rupees each.
If any person disobeys any rule or order which a Government has made in
pursuance of this Act and for the punishment of disobedience to which express
provision has not been made elsewhere in this Act, he shall be punishable for
every such offence with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees.
12. The relevant provisions of the Major Port Trust Act are specified below.
(h) vessels, tugs or other boats for use within the limits of the port or beyond
those limits, whether in territorial waters or otherwise, for the purpose of towing
or rendering assistance to any vessel, whether entering or leaving the port or
bound elsewhere, and for the purpose of saving or protecting life or property and
for the purpose of landing, shipping or transshipping passengers or goods under
Section 42.
12
Ushering a Step Change
(h) for keeping clean the port, river or basins or the bank of the river and the
works of the boards, and for preventing filth or rubbish being thrown therein or
thereon; and
13. Examples of provision for oil spill prevention and response in Rules and
Regulations of Major Ports and non major Ports in Maritime States are
appended below.
(a) Mumbai Port Trust- Byelaws for the Regulation and the
Management of the Docks
(2) (h) vessels, tugs or other boats for use within the limits of the port or
beyond those limits, whether in territorial waters or otherwise, for the
purpose of towing or rendering assistance to any vessel, whether entering
or leaving the port or bound elsewhere, and for the purpose of saving or
protecting life or property and for the purpose of landing, shipping or
transshipping passengers or goods under Section 32.
OPRC, 1990
14. The provisions of OPRC 1990 require the contracting state to have in
place adequate measures to deal with oil pollution from ships, in ports and oil
terminals. A contingency plan is required by these entities to combat pollution
13
Ushering a Step Change
in the affected areas at the coast. The objective is to provide oil pollution
response and preparedness plans for the ships, ports and oil handling facilities
under its jurisdiction which are coordinated with the national system. These
plans prescribes reporting procedures, action to be taken on oil pollution
report, international co-operation in preparedness and response, establishment
of oil pollution combating equipment stockpiles, implementation of training
programs and improving in salvage services.
16. The objective of this to confer power on the coastal state to intervene in
the event of a pollution casualty on the high seas, threatening to damage or
damaging its coastline or related interest. This specifies in which cases and
respect of what damage the coastal state may take action. However, there is no
power to intervene unless there is grave and imminent danger. It is essential to
have the provions of this convention in the Maritime or Port or any other
legalization to give effect. The provisions with respect to prevention and
containment of oil pollution have been extended to casualty occurring on the
high seas in the MS Act, only briefly in section 356 A.
14
Ushering a Step Change
18. The Merchant Shipping Act (Section 402 to 404), MS (Wreck & Salvage)
Rules, 1974 (Rules 20-25) make for adequate provisions but not covering all
articles of the convention. Rule 14 (2)(c) of the Coast Guard Act, 1978 may be
applied. However, the Indian Ports Act 1908, Major Ports Act 1963, or
Environment Act 1986 have no direct provisions but inference can be drawn
from the applicable acts.
19. An amendment to Part XIII of Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 which deals
with Wreck & Salvage is being brought about in-line with the provisions of
Nairobi Wreck removal Convention, 2007 and Salvage Convention, 1989 to
which India is party. This part would cover compulsory insurance maintenance
by the ship owner against marking and removal of wreck in the convention
area i.e. territorial waters and EEZ. This part also covers the provisions of
Salvage Convention which requires the ship owner to make arrangements for
salvage of the ships at his cost.
15
Ushering a Step Change
Conclusion
16
Ushering a Step Change
relating to safety, security, pollution response and liability by and large. With
the dynamic marine working environment, the legislation requires to be
updated regularly. Authority and responsibility of enforcement body to prevent,
minimize, mitigate and control oil pollution within coastal water of India is not
clearly defined. Supplementary Fund 2003 that provides higher limit for oil
pollution damage in respect of oil tankers carrying persistent oil has not been
ratified by India. Legislation under strict liability regime for bunker oil damage
applicable to Indian ships, wherever they are, and foreign ships within
territorial waters of India have not been framed as yet. Right and obligation of
ship owner and master, crew etc. are not addressed in respect of pollution
prevention, response in the event of oil pollution in Indian waters as well as in
foreign waters for Indian ships. The relevant provisions of part XII of UNCLOS,
1982 i.e. Protection and Preservation of Marine Environment namely Article
198, Article 217, Article 218, Article 220, Article 221, and Article 226 have not
been completely addressed in this legislation. The executive orders lack legal
sanctity, as there are no provisions in the relevant acts for promulgation. None
of the rules have provision for regular review by the Central Government. This
creates huge gap between the modified International Regulation from time to
time and the existing national laws. There is no legal framework to remove
wrecks beyond TW up to EEZ in the Indian Laws till date, though India has
ratified the Wreck Removal Convention, 2007.
25. Since port time of ships is an important cost and operational factor the
Harbor Master will always be under pressure to grant preferential treatment to
shipping lines. The Harbor Master or Port Officer should not function within
purely commercial environment and must have freedom of action for safety and
protection of marine environment.
26. There is undue delay in framing Legislation for OPRC 1990 which is
making the enforcement through the NOSDCP extremely difficult. This delay is
likely to complicate the issues relating to reimbursement of cost of assistance,
establishment of oil pollution, combating equipment stockpiles, augmenting
training programme at various level of responsibility and improving salvage
services. There is no interim legislation in the form of Government Notification
in respect of OPRC Convention 1990.
27. The liability in respect of oil pollution from cargo ships is being covered
under part XA Limitation of Liability of Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. This
part does not impose strict liability on the polluter and therefore the
17
Ushering a Step Change
28. The strict liability regimes for oil tanker carrying less than 2000 tons of
cargo of persistent oil in bulk is covered by Fund, 1992 and may escape
payment of compensation to the victims who get affected because of inadequate
sensitization and reference in the Act.
18
Mandated Requirements and
Capabilities at Select Ports 3
Introduction
Balikpapan Port
Sydney Port
Singapore Port
4. The Port of Singapore refers to the collective facilities and terminals that
conduct maritime trade handling functions in Singapores harbours and which
handle Singapores shipping. Currently the worlds second busiest port in
terms of total shipping tonnage, it also transships a fifth of the worlds shipping
containers, half of the worlds annual supply of crude oil, and is the worlds
Ushering a Step Change
busiest trans-shipment port. It was also the busiest port in terms of total cargo
tonnage handled until 2005, when it was surpassed by the Port of Shanghai.
Thousands of ships drop anchor in the harbor, connecting the port to over six
hundred other ports in one hundred twenty-three countries and spread over
six continents.
5. Singapore Port maintains 26 sets of oil spill dispersant spray systems for
prompt response to any oil spill disaster. Moreover, Singapore Port has an
agreement with M/s Oil Spill Response Limited (OSRL), Singapore for oil spill
response in the country.
Rotterdam Port
8. Rotterdam is one of the largest ports in the world. The port authority has
contracted with commercial company HEBO to respond to all incidents in port
area. The company operates oil recovery craft and quantities of containment
boom within port area. The port does not stock its own OSD, however,
authority would seek assistance from the UK, if necessary.
20
Ushering a Step Change
10. WAC 173-182-355 lays down the Planning Standards for transfer sites
for covered vessels at locations where transfers occur, and for facilities with a
vessel terminal as discussed in the ensuing table.
1
Worst Case Scenario
2
Effective daily recovery capacity (EDRC) means the calculated capacity of oil recovery devices that
accounts for limiting factors such as daylight, weather, sea state, and emulsified oil in recovered material.
21
Ushering a Step Change
11. WAC 173-182-450 sets planning standards for the Washington coast
that apply to covered vessels that enter Washington waters at the Columbia
River, Grays Harbor or the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and offshore facilities. Plan
holders are required to be capable of sustaining a worst case spill response and
develop an addendum specific to Washington's coast, including:
(1) Plan holders shall have methods to track and contain spilled oil and
enhance the recovery and removal operations that are described in the
plan.
(b) The plan shall include a description of the sensitive areas and
develop strategies to protect the resources, including information on
natural resources, coastal and aquatic habitat types and sensitivity
by season, breeding sites, presence of state or federally listed
22
Ushering a Step Change
(f) Each facility with the potential to impact a "sole source" aquifer or
public drinking water source must identify the types of substrate and
geographical extent of sensitive sites.
(3) The GRPs have been developed to meet these requirements and plans
may refer to the NWACP to meet these requirements. If approved GRPs
do not exist in the NWACP, plan holders will work with ecology to
determine alternative sensitive areas to protect.
(4) Each plan shall identify potential initial command post locations.
23
Tier 1 Preparedness of Ports 4
Inventory of Oil Spill Response Equipment
'C'
25
Ushering a Step Change
26
Ushering a Step Change
6. All ports submit annual returns on status of their oil spill response
equipment inventory, Oil Spill Dispersant (OSD) stock, oil spill contingency
plan, trained manpower, etc to Indian Coast Guard vide Chairman NOSDCP
Circular 01/2013.
Containment Equipment
7. Booms are used for containment of spilled oil. The status of containment
boom held by the major ports as of December 2012 is shown in the figure
below.
900 850
800 800
800
700 650
600 600
600
500
500
400
300 300
Boom (in mtrs)
200
100
0 0 0 0 0
0
Recovery Equipment
8. As per the categorization of ports Cat 'A' and Cat 'B' ports should have 04
skimmers of capacity 20tph each ie; all major ports should have skimmers
capacity of 80 tph. The skimming capacity of major ports as of December 2012
is shown in the accompanying figure.
27
Ushering a Step Change
100
Skimmimg
87
Capacity at Major Ports
90
80
70 70
60 51.5
50 40
40 31.8
30 30
25
20 20 Skimmer (Capacity tph)
10 5 10
0 0 0
0
9. The status of oil spill dispersant held with the major ports is appended in
the ensuing figure.
28
Ushering a Step Change
10. The status of deployment of oil spill response resources in each major
port is tabulated below.
29
Ushering a Step Change
12 10
49 Trained Manpower at Major Ports
10
8
6
6
4 4 Level 1
4 3 3 3
Level 2
2
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 00
0
30
Ushering a Step Change
13. The Committee observed with concern that only three of the twelve major
ports have an oil spill contingency plan approved by the Coast Guard. The
status is appended in the ensuing table.
Memorandum of Understanding
14. Many ports have entered into a contractual agreement with oil handling
agencies and terminal operators for acquiring the pollution response resources.
The 11th NOSDCP meeting held at Chennai Port Trust on 24th April 2008
deliberated in detail the issue regarding the execution of Memorandum of
31
Ushering a Step Change
Understanding (MoU) by ports with respective oil handling agencies. The details
of MoU signatories at various major ports are tabulated below.
Port Signatories
Mumbai Mumbai Port Trust, Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Bharat Petroleum, Indian
Oil, Hindustan Petroleum, Oil and Natural Gas Corp., Aegis Logistics, Tata
Power, Chemical Terminal Trombay, Reliance Industries
Cochin Cochin Port and Kochi Refineries, Bharat Petroleum, Indian Oil & Hindustan
Petroleum
Tuticorin Tuticorin Port and Indian Oil & Southern Petrochemical Industries
Chennai Chennai Port and Chennai Petroleum, Indian Oil, Hindustan Petroleum &
Bharat Petroleum
Vizag Visakhapatnam Port Trust and Hindustan Petroleum Visakha Terminal,
Bharat Petroleum & Indian Oil
Paradip Paradip Port and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Ltd & Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd
Haldia Haldia Dock Complex & Indian Oil, Hindustan Petroleum, Bharat Petroleum,
Haldia Petrochemicals, Ruchi Infrastructure, Tata Chemical, Haldia Barauni
Crude Pipeline, Hitec Carbon, AVR & Co., Indian Oil Petronas, United Storage
& Tank Terminals
15. During the 9th NOSDCP meeting held on 29th September 2006, a decision
was taken to conduct a joint inspection of the tier 1 oil spill response facilities
of ports by a Coast Guard representative along with representatives of the
Ministry of Shipping for ports. Accordingly, the Coast Guard in coordination
with Ministry of Shipping has been undertaking joint inspection of tier 1 oil
spill response facility at ports since 2007, for checking the preparedness level
and recommending suitable remedial action
32
Ushering a Step Change
17. Reviewing the joint inspections conducted since 2007, the Committee
observed that the joint inspections have been periodic, and irregular.
19. As a State party to OPRC 1990, persons having charge of sea ports in
India are required to have oil pollution emergency plan and such preparedness
planning includes maintenance of an effective and fool proof surveillance
system to monitor and detect any presence or discharge of oil in contravention
of the provisions in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 as amended.
20. The need for oil spill detection capabilities at sea ports and oil handling
facilities was discussed during 16th NOSDCP meeting on 19th April 2011. The
Committee of Secretaries in its meeting on 2nd December 2011 decided that the
installation of oil spill detection software in Vessel Traffic Monitoring System
33
Ushering a Step Change
(VTMS) radars at ports and Vessel and Air Traffic Monitoring System (VATMS)
radars of oil companies along the coastline may be studied and, if found
feasible, be done in a time-bound manner. The status was reviewed at the 18th
NOSDCP meeting on 31st May 2013. The capability for radar detection of oil
spills is expected to be achieved either by way of IMO type approved SOLAS
compliant radar or by installing a software patch on existing radar.
23. Except for oil berths at Karaikal, Tuticorin, Chennai, Ennore and
Visakhapatnam port and permanent boom on dockside at Sikka Reliance
terminal, pre-booming is not practiced at any port. Reported constraints
include strong tidal currents ranging from 3-6 knots and periodic change of
direction with flood and ebb stream. The Committee was appraised of the study
conducted by Coast Guard which had observed feasibility of pre-booming for oil
berths at Mumbai and Kochi and recommended implementation. Pre-booming
though feasible for oil berths at Marmagao and New Mangalore is not
recommended view obstruction to adjacent berths and low shoreline sensitivity
respectively.
24. The findings and observations of the Coast Guard study on pre-booming
practice are summarized in ensuing tables for ports and SPMs on the west and
east coast respectively.
34
Ushering a Step Change
35
Ushering a Step Change
36
Ushering a Step Change
25. Considering the metrological factors and mobility desired of the ship and
its assisting craft it may not be feasible to implement pre-booming at the SPMs
as a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). However, ecological sensitivity of the
areas likely to be affected by the spill remains an issue of significant concern
and is required to be addressed by an equivalent measure of protection against
any risk of oil spills.
37
Stakeholder Consultations 5
Introduction
Port Mechanism
Kandla Oil Pollution Cess is collected on the imports of crude oil at Vadinar at
the rate of Re. 0.50 Per MT once in 3 months and the proceeds are
remitted to the Government as per the procedure.
Mumbai The vessel agent are required to file a declaration form in respect of
liability regarding OPC when they approach for VCN and make advance
payment of vessel related charges on self assessment basis. The
collection of Oil Pollution Cess or demanding attested attested copies of
receipts for payment of Oil Pollution Cess made within preceding 3
months at any Indian Port will be monitored by Dock Master Control
Station.
JNPT Port Collect the oil pollution cess from the concerned agencies based on
POL Products handled.
New Mangalore Oil Pollution Cess is collected @ 50 paise per tonne of oil
imported/exported through the Port. 90% of the oil cess amount is
remitted to Ministry of Shipping and 10% is retained by the Port.
Cochin Cess collected from vessels @ 50 paise per metric tonne.
Chennai The oil cess of 50 paise per tonne of the oil cargo handled is being
debited from the EDI account of the respective steamer Agent who
handles the oil tanker. 90% of the oil cess amount is remitted to Ministry
of Shipping and 10% is retained by the Port as Servicce Charges.
Visakhapatnam Port has levying Oil Pollution Cess for the vessels carrying
Export/Import Black Oils i.e. Light Diesel Oil, Furnace Oil and Crude Oil.
A bill is generated based on the cargo declaration furnished by the
Steamer Agent through Import Gneral Manifest (IGM) in respect of
Import Vessels and the final Export Application/S.B. tonnage is the basis
for collection of Oil Pollution Cess on Export vessels. The Oil Pollution
Cess once paid at any part for a given parcel or tonnage is valid for a
period of 3 Months for the same size of future parcel/tonnage for the
said vessel.
Paradip Oil Pollution Cess collected @ Rs. 0.50 per MT once in 90 days.
Kolkata Oil Pollution Cess is collected by KoPT from the Steamer Agent on behalf
of Ministry of Shipping in terms of Section 356 (M) of MS Act, 1958. The
collected cess is remitted to the Ministry of Shipping after deducting the
cost of collection and a proforma account is submitted.
Mormugao Cess is collected at Rs. 0.50 paise Per tonne in all oil tankers calling at
Port.
VoC Port As per Ministry's letter No. PAO(Sh)/C/OPC/05-06-167 dated 05-08-2005,
oil pollution cess is being collected at the rate of 0.50 paise per tonne
from the user and remitted to Government after deducting 10% of the
collection which is pertaining to the port.
Ennore 0.50 paise per tonne
39
Ushering a Step Change
40
Ushering a Step Change
41
Ushering a Step Change
Port Mechanism
Kandla Port has an MOU with Oil companies where these oil companies
together bear the capital expenditure for intial procurement of
equipment.
Mumbai It is under MOU with Oil companies.
JNPT Adequate Budget provision is available towards purchase of Oil
Spill Equipment.
New Mangalore The existing Pollution Control Equipment were procured form
the port fund. There is porposal for upgrading the capability of
Oil spill Equipment by entering in to MOU with oil companies
except MRPL.
Cochin Oil spill combat equipments funded by oil handling companies
like BPCL-KR etc.
Chennai An MOU has been signed with oil companies in the year 2003
for augmenting the oil spill response facilities and equipments
have been procured by the funding of oil companies which are
operated and maintained by the Pollution Control Cell of the
Port.
Visakhapatnam An MOU has been signed with Oil companies , which contributes
towards procurement of Oil spill response equipment
Paradip Mostly from major Oil companies ( IOCL, HPCL & BPCL)
Kolkata At KDS, it is funded from Port's own resources. At HDC, cost of
pollution control equipment is borne by the stakeholders in the
ratio of their handling
Mormugao It is under final assessment of MOU and will be sponsored by Oil
companies.
VoC Port The MoU between Tuticorin Port Trust and Indian Oil
Corporation, Southern Petrochemical Industries on tier 1 oil
pollution combating equipment at Tuticorin Port Trust was
signed on 11 August 2006. The cost of procurement, operation
and maintenance is shared by Indian Oil Corporation and
Southern Petrochemical Industries
Ennore The equipment has been deployed by BOT operator.
42
Ushering a Step Change
43
Ushering a Step Change
44
Ushering a Step Change
Port Experience
Kandla Nil ( Minor incidents successfully handled by spraying OSD)
Mumbai Nil
JNPT In August 2010 oil pollution occurred due to collision
between vessels MV MSC Chitra & MV Kjalijia
New Mangalore In 2010 and 2011 , oil spill booms were deployed , oil spill
dispersant and absorbent pads were used to clean the water
polluted with approx 500lts and 5000lts of black thick oil
respectively
Cochin In March 2007, there was accidental discharge of oil from
Malaysian Naval Ship in Mattanchery channel contained by
having oil boom ,skimmed by skimmer and using OSD
Visakhapatnam Nil
Paradip During Sept'2009 Port has handled oil spillage from sunken
vessel MV Black Rose. Entire sunken ship was surrounded
with Oil Containment Booms. Entire spilled oil was contained
and restricted within the ship side and same was collected
using various pollution/collection equipments like skimmer,
oil reception barge, sorbent booms, sorbent pads etc
Kolkata Two incidents of minor oil spillage- Jan'2011,MT Ratna Urvi
came in contact with Oil Jetty and on 23rd Nov,2011 there
was collision between Tiger Spring and Green Valley causing
Oil spillage
Mormugao Minor pollutions are being tackled by deploying oil booms,
chemical dispersant etc
VoC Port During the leakage of furnace oil from m.t. Jag Preeti on
03 May 2011 at oil jetty, spill was contained and cleaned
with own resources.
Ennore Nil
45
Ushering a Step Change
46
Ushering a Step Change
47
Oil Pollution Cess 6
Introduction
1. An oil pollution cess is being levied on every ship calling at any port in
India, in respect of each tone of oil imported by a ship into India in bulk as a
cargo, for the purpose providing oil reception facilities and equipments and
materials for combating oil pollution at various ports in India. However, the
cess being collected for the past twenty-five years at the nominal rate of
50 paise per tonne has never been utilized for the intended purposes.
Apparently, there has been a lack of uniformity in the collection, partly due to
difficulties in implementation of the legal provisions and partly, inadequate
monitoring. The inadequacy of tier1 equipment at ports has set the focus on
the corpus generated by the oil pollution cess and the possibility of its use for
devising a plan to equip major and non-major ports with at least tier 1 facilities
so that any oil pollution within port waters is tackled immediately and no
damage is done to the coast and environment. This chapter reviews the status
and examines the possibilities for strengthening the cess collection mechanism,
and corpus.
Background
2. India is party to the IMO OPRC Convention, 1990. OPRC 1990 requires
that a State party to the Convention establish a contingency plan and
stockpiles of equipment for responding to incidents or threat of oil pollution.
The NOSDCP promulgated by the Coast Guard to implement the provisions of
the Convention provides that all oil handling agencies including ports are
responsible to combat oil pollution in their areas. Ports are accordingly
required to develop tier 1 facilities for combating oil spill in the port limits.
356 M. Oil Pollution Cess. (1) With effect from such date as the Central
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, there shall
be levied on every ship calling at any port in India being a ship which carries
oil as cargo, a cess to be called Oil Pollution Cess (hereafter in this Part
referred to as cess) at such rate not exceeding fifty paise-
(a) In respect of each tone of oil imported by a ship into India in bulk as
a cargo;
(b) In respect of each tonne of oil shipped from any place in India in bulk
as a cargo of a ship.
As the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix:
Provided that no cess shall be levied on a ship at any port if the ship
produce evidence of having paid such levy at the same or any other port in
India within a period of three months immediately preceding its present call
at the port.
(2) The cess shall be collected by such officers and in such manner as the
Central Government may prescribe in this behalf and shall, after deduction of
such costs of collection, if any, as the Central Government may determine, be
paid to such authority as the Central Government may specify.
(3) The proceeds of the cess shall, after due appropriation made by
Parliament by law, be utilised for the purpose of providing oil reception
facilities and equipments and materials for combating oil pollution at various
ports in India and for such other like purposes as the Central Government
may, by notification in the official Gazette, from time to time, specify.
356O. Power to make rules- (1) The Central Government may, having
regard to the provisions of the Convention, make rules to carry out the
purposes of this Part.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of
sub-section(1),such rules may-
(e) specify the officers who shall collect the cess and the manner
in which the cess shall be collected.
(ee) any other matter which, for the implementation of the
Convention, has to be or may be prescribed [Ins by The Merchant
Shipping (Amendment) Act,2003 (59 of 2003) 5.6(iv)].
49
Ushering a Step Change
60000
POL handled at Major Ports (2010-12)
50000 (thousand tons)
40000
30000
20000 2010-11
2011-12
10000
4. The cess is available at every port in India at the rate of fifty paise in
respect of each tonne of oil:
50
Ushering a Step Change
Shipping and 10% is retained by the Port as Service Charges. The vessel agent
is required to file a declaration form in respect of liability regarding OPC when
they approach for VCN and make advance payment of vessel related charges on
self assessment basis. The collection of oil pollution cess or demanding attested
copies of receipts for payment of oil pollution cess made within preceding three
months at any Indian Port is usually monitored by the Dock Master Control
Station. Incidentally, Captain of Port Department, Goa and Kerala intimated
during stakeholder consultation that oil pollution cess collection mechanism is
not implemented.
Utilization of Cess
7. The amount of oil pollution cess collected and deposited by various major
ports and non-major ports under the Maritime Boards and State Governments
for seven years from 2005-06 to 2011-12 was Rs. 27.58 crore. The cess
collected intended to be utilized for the purpose of providing oil reception
facilities and equipments and materials for combating oil pollution at various
ports in India and for such other like purposes as notified by the Central
Government from time to time. Though the oil pollution cess is being collected
for nearly twenty-five years from since October 1988, no money was ever
utilized for the intended purpose for want of a scheme for implementation.
51
Ushering a Step Change
8. The shipping activities on the Indian coast have been increasing with the
increase in trade and the ports being developed. The major and non-major
ports are divided into three risk categories from A to C depending on risk
assessment and the profile of cargo handled. However, the recent oil spill
incidents on the coast resulted in social, economic, and ecological damage and
the major and non-major ports were found to be inadequately equipped in
comparison to the risk owing to high costs of capital acquisition. Based on a
rough indicative cost, acquisition of the equipment stipulated by the Indian
Coast Guard is estimated to vary from Rs. 1 Crore for Cat C port to Rs. 15
Crore for a Cat A port. Therefore, a need has been felt to devise a scheme to
utilize the oil pollution cess collected by various ports to augment the capacity
to combat and mitigate oil pollution.
Funding Mechanism
10. Funding of tier 1 capability may be achieved in three ways. First option is
to utilize internal resources, like any other assets. A second option is to enter
into a Memorandum of Understanding with Oil Companies and Tank Farm
Owners for proportional contribution, as all stakeholders have a joint
responsibility towards the environment. The MoU route is commonly being
adopted by major ports. A third option is to grant financial assistance from a
Scheme for Central Assistance to Major Ports and Maritime States from a Oil
Pollution Fund being developed by the Central Government from the cess
collected from the Ports as per the MS Act, 1958.
11. The Committee strongly advises the Ministry of Shipping to develop and
implement such a Scheme so that all ports will be equipped with the requisite
tier 1 capability. The Committee has also deliberated about the potential of
developing tier 1 capabilities at smaller ports, where on account of the limited
cargo handled revenue generated is insufficient to afford a significant financial
liability, yet, capabilities are required to be accessible.
52
Ushering a Step Change
12. The Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) has been expressing the idea of
developing common facilities for a group of smaller ports at one place and to
deploy those facilities whenever an incident occurs at one of those ports. The
Committee, after due deliberations, could not subscribe to this idea fully on
various counts.
13. In nine of the twelve GMB ports, an average 80-90 % of the spilled oil in
any incident is expected to reach the shoreline in less than 20 minutes to an
hour. The length of coastline likely to be affected by a tier 1 spill is a minimum
of one kilometer, and as much as four kilometers. Further, the coast of Gujarat
saddles one of Indias most ecologically sensitive areas viz., the Gulf of Kutchch
marine sanctuary besides 1031 km2 of mangroves and 460 km2 of salt pans
which produces nearly eighty percent of Indias salt. This implies that oil spill
response measures by GMB should be predominantly focused on shoreline
protection and clean-up measures, and also positioned for immediate
deployment.
14. Taking these facts into consideration, the Committee came to the firm
conclusion that it was inevitable that the GMB builds up individual tier 1
facility at each of its ports, over a period of time, using any one of the funding
options, since it is highly improbable that an inventory positioned elsewhere
could be deployed within a reasonable period of time to prevent damage to its
sensitive shoreline.
53
Ushering a Step Change
15. In view of the aforesaid position, the Committee was of the opinion that it
is necessary to review the provisions of MS Act, 1958. On a thorough review
and detailed deliberations, the Committee suggests that the statutory
provisions may be amended as follows:
(a) Oil Cess should be increased from present level of Rs.0.50 to Rs.2
to mop up enough funds for creation of oil pollution capabilities in all
ports.
(b) Instead of mentioning a particular amount, the provision needs to
be amended to give effect as to such amount as Central Government
may notify from time to time.
(c) Cess should be collected from all oil/hazardous liquid
tankers/vessels calling on Indian Ports on each entry basis instead of
present 3 months period. The Committee did not find any justification
for levy of cess once in 3 months because the potential danger of spillage
and pollution exists on every drop of oil/hazardous liquid
loaded/discharged at the Port;
(d) Cess may be collected on the quantity of oil/hazardous liquid
loaded/discharged at the Port but not on the quantity carried by the
tanker/vessel;
(e) Oil and Hazardous Liquid need to be defined in the Act; and
(f) Considering the aforesaid logic, the Cess should be levied on
coastal vessels carrying such oil/hazardous liquids
Review of Collection Mechanism
16. Based on its review of the Cess amounts deposited by the Ports, the
Committee was of the opinion that despite statutory provisions existing in the
MS Act, there is no effective monitoring mechanism either of the levy, or
collection, or deposit of Cess into the Central Government Account. In some
cases the levy is not being collected, and sometimes, even if collected, it has
not been deposited. There are also cases where a wrong account number was
mentioned and deposited. There is no procedure for acknowledgement of
deposit.
54
Ushering a Step Change
17. Some ports deduct the administrative charges and some others do not.
The Committee could not ascertain whether administrative charges are
deducted on uniform basis.
18. The Committee did not rule out the possibility of leakage of revenue on
this account due to the above factors. Hence, it is felt desirable that the whole
mechanism should be streamlined and ensured there is no leakage of any
revenue.
55
Ushering a Step Change
(h) If any default occurs in complying with the above procedure, the
concerned officer is liable for action under various provisions of the MS
Act and also the concerned Port Trust/Maritime Board/State
Department will not be eligible for financial assistance for their pollution
control equipment.
40000
Crude and Product handled at Major Ports (2010-12)
35000
(thousand tons)
30000
25000
20000
15000 Crude
10000 Product
5000
56
Ushering a Step Change
20. The Committee reviewed the cess collection practices in select countries
including China, New Zealand, Canada, and United States and a discussion on
the observations and findings ensues.
22. New Zealand applies an Oil Pollution Levy (OPL) to all commercial vessels
over 100 gross tons and 24 meters or more in length, offshore oil installations,
exploration wells and oil pipelines. The (OPL) comprises of three components
viz., Base levy, Capability levy, and a Capital expenditure levy.
23. The mechanism for levying contributions to the Oil Pollution Fund is
contained within the Maritime Transport Oil Pollution Levies Order 2013,
which sets out specific financial levies for coastal trade ships (including oil
tankers), fishing vessels, offshore petroleum rigs and platforms, and oil
pipelines. Foreign vessels pay per voyage, per port while New Zealand vessels
pay annually. For the first time in fifteen years, the levy was increased, with
the contribution by each industry sector updated to reflect its oil pollution risk
1
U.S. energy giant ConocoPhillips China, operator of the oilfield, paid 1.09 billion yuan in compensation
for the oil spills while China National Offshore Oil Corp. and the Chinese unit of ConocoPhillips paid 480
million yuan and 113 million yuan, respectively, for environmental protection efforts in the Bohai Sea.
57
Ushering a Step Change
potential; with effect from 1st July 2013, OPL revenue increased from $3.1
million to $4.5 million annually. Two temporary levies to boost response
capability and equipment in the wake of the grounding of the Rena will
generate additional income of approximately $1 million for each of the next
three years.
58
Ushering a Step Change
24. The OPL runs New Zealands maritime oil pollution preparedness and
response system and is maintained to cover the costs of the Oil Pollution
Advisory Committee, purchase of response equipment, investigating a
suspected marine oil spill, services associated with planning and responding to
marine oil spills, taking measures to avoid marine oil spills and to pay
expenses when the polluter is not identified.
26. An 8,000 tonnes oil spill from the grounding of the tanker Arrow in Nova
Scotia in 1970 led Canada to create the Maritime Pollution Claims Fund
(MPCF).2 15 cents was levied per ton of oil imported or exported from Canada
between 1972 and 1976 to finance the MPCF. Canada continued with this
domestic regime despite contracting to the international regime in April 1989,
albeit by rechristening the MPCF as the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund
(SOPF).3 The SOPF is intended to pay claims regarding oil spills from all classes
of ships at any place in Canada, or in Canadian waters including the exclusive
economic zone. It covers all claims for ship-source oil pollution, including those
governed by the 1992 Civil Liability Convention (CLC) and the 1992 Fund
Convention, as supplemented by the Supplementary Fund, and the 2001
Bunkers Convention. Defined class of persons in the fishing industry may
claim for loss of income.4 The Canadian Government is permitted direct access
2
The Marine Liability Act makes provision for the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund (SOPF) and the appointment of
the Administrator to administer that fund. Liability and compensation for ship-source oil pollution in Canada is
governed by Part 6 of the MLA, Statutes of Canada 2009, Chapter 21. It was introduced under Part XX of the
Canada Shipping Act and became part of Canadian Law on June 30, 1971. It also established, for the first time in
the western world, the strict liability of ship owners for a discharge of oil together with possibility for limiting the
liability in certain circumstances.
3
The change was affected through amendment to Part XVI of CSA. In August 2001, the liability and compensation
provisions in Part XVI of CSA were transferred to the Marine Liability Act, Part 6 as modified by Statutes of Canada,
2009, Chapter 21.
4
The Canadian regime addresses all ships, other than tankers covered under the international regime. It does not
apply however to drilling activities in so far as an escape or discharge of oil emanates from those activities. Nor
59
Ushering a Step Change
as a claimant to the Fund since 1993. The SOPF performs two functions -
subrogation and last resort. The maximum liability of the SOPF is indexed
annually to the Canadian Consumer Price Index. In April 2011, for example,
the maximum liability beyond that available from the ship owner or the
international funds was $157,803,519, to the extent that the claim has not
been fully compensated. The SOPF Administrator is empowered to take
recourse action against third parties to recover amounts paid out of the SOPF,
and is a party by statute to any proceedings commenced by a claimant against
ship owner, insurer, or the Fund.
27. 26 USC 9509 (c)(2)(A)(i) provides for a Trust Fund of US$ one billion
paid by petroleum taxes to compensate for those unable to obtain adequate or
any compensation from the OPA 1990. The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
(OSLTF) was created post Exxon Valdez by levying a one-time cess on oil for a
fixed period of time. This $1 billion fund is managed by the US Coast Guard.
The on-scene commander has direct access to this open fund. The OSC can
draw up to $25,000 for urgent and essential expenditure during oil spill
response operation, subject to re-imbursement on settlement of claim.
does it apply to a floating storage unit, or floating production storage units, unless the unit is carrying oil as a cargo
on a voyage to or from a port or terminal outside an offshore oil field.
60
Private OSRO 7
Background
1. The oil spill incident of m.v. MSC Chitra in August 2010 and the
m.v. Rak Carrier in August 2011 has indicated that unless comprehensive oil
pollution preparedness is put in place by all the stakeholders, the response
measures through Coast Guard efforts alone will not suffice. Any large oil spill
will incur mobilisation of large number of vessels and manpower, equipment
for salvage of oil, legal support for claims, which could be achieved only by
pooling the resources or alternatively, the clean-up operations may be
undertaken by a private Oil Spill response Organisation (OSRO), who can
provide all such services at the expense of the polluter.
2. Evidently, there are two distinct categories of oil spill risks the
merchant vessels and oil installations. Major oil exploration and production
companies in India such as ONGC, Reliance, Cairn Energy, etc., maintain a
contractual arrangement with a foreign OSRO, who guarantees availability of
oil spill response equipment in India within 24 hours of notification of oil spill.
The guarantee usually includes provisioning of qualified specialists and aerial
dispersant application but does not include transportation of containment and
recovery equipment which are very heavy and bulky and used specifically to
protect the critical and environmentally sensitive shorelines. When an oil spill
hits the shoreline, the clean-up process is a long drawn affair and involves
mobilization of a large response inventory and manpower. Expecting this
support from a foreign based OSRO would not be cost effective, as the OSRO
would expect the clean-up costs to be paid upfront and the polluter will only
pay for reasonable costs, which does not generally include the transportation
cost from a foreign country.
4. When oil is escaping or likely to escape from a vessel, the owner, agent,
master, or charterer of the vessel may be required by a notice served upon him
to take action for removal of oil slicks, dispersal of slicks, preventing the escape
of oil from the vessel, and removal of vessel to a specified place.
Notwithstanding the notice served on the owner, the Government may proceed
to take such measures as may be deemed necessary if the person fails to
comply (wholly or in part), or if the pollution caused or likely to be caused has
or may present a grave emergency. Any expenditure or liability so incurred by
the Government shall be a charge upon the vessel until the amount is paid. It
is for this contingency of grave damage or failure on part of a ship owner to
comply, that Governments maintain preparedness for response to oil spills.
62
Ushering a Step Change
Australia
11. In Australia, the Australia Marine Oil Spill Center (AMOSC), an initiative
of the Australian oil industry, was formed in 1991 as a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Australian Institute of Petroleum. The Center is financed by
nine participating oil companies and other subscriber companies. These
companies carry out the vast majority of the oil and gas production, offshore
pipeline, terminal operations and tanker movements around the Australian
coast.
63
Ushering a Step Change
Japan
Korea
15. Korea has defined its National Response Capability target as 20,000
tons. Of this target, the government has retained responsibility for building up
a capacity of 10,000 tons through the Korea National Marine Police Authority.
5,000 tons each is assigned to the Korea Marine Pollution Response
Corporation (KMPRC) and the individual private companies. The KMPRC
comprises of 97 member companies and has its legal basis in the Law of
Marine Pollution Prevention, 1997. A separate registration regime is
established for cleanup business. About 23 contractors are registered under
the regime.
United Kingdom
16. In the United Kingdom, the UK MCA holds responsibility for pollution
response and salvage. However, responsibility for cleanup lies with the
Contractors who may use CG equipment resources or hire MCA tugs. The
Government maintains strategic overview for oil spill management and
minimum essential resources for first response. Funds to the tune of 100,000
pounds are available with UK MCA for oil spill response.
64
Ushering a Step Change
United States
17. Spill response arrangements within the USA are governed by the Oil
Pollution Act, 1990 (OPA 90). Under OPA 90, tankers within US waters are
required to have pre-contracted resources sufficient to deal with a number of
spill scenarios including maximum most probable discharge and worst case
discharge i.e., loss of entire cargo. As per OPA 90, responsibility for cleanup
vests with the polluter in the event of a spill.
19. The US has over 130 private, profit and non-profit Oil Spill Response
Organisations (OSROs) funded by the oil industry. They are essentially
facilitated by compelling liabilities against the industry under OPA 90.
Maritime Spill Response Corporation (MRSC) and Clean Caribbean Cooperative
(CCC) are the two major OSROs funded by oil industry. National Response
Corporation (NRC) also operates nationwide but is a for profit OSRO. The
OSROs are classified into different tiers of capability as M, W1, W2, or W3
based on a specified classification matrix.
20. Post Exxon Valdez, an Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) has been
created by levying a one-time cess on oil for a fixed period of time. This $1
billion fund is managed by the USCG. The on-scene commander has direct
access to this open fund. The OSC can draw up to $25,000 for urgent and
essential expenditure during oil spill response operation, subject to re-
imbursement on settlement of claim.
65
Ushering a Step Change
Government are prohibitive and far in excess of the rates levied by the industry
for utilization of assets of matching capability. Thus, capitation costs were
strongly contested in the case of the m.v. Maritime Wisdom. A private OSROs
closer cooperation with the insurers lends the advantage of assured cost
recovery and easy settlement of claims particularly for tier-3 scenario.
22. Response to large scale oil spills calls for sub-contracting of jobs and
labour at extremely short notice. It is also important that recovered oil is
properly disposed off. About 600 tons of oil recovered from m.v. Chitra
remained in the premises of the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust for a considerable
period of time, for want of Customs clearances. Similar was the case at
Chennai in an earlier spill. Such tasks of oil disposal are best left to an OSRO.
23. Start-up OSROs are known to have come up in India. But they are yet to
exude the required confidence. These start-ups would expect some kind of a
guarantee that covers their cleanup costs. They would also expect that some
form of premiums or continuing stand-by cost be provided to them even when
no oil spill occurs, so as to accrue some returns for their investment in the spill
response inventory.
24. The industry may not be readily forthcoming in pledging any finances,
unless nudged and mandated to do so. At the same time, unless the resources
to cover the startup capital and recurring costs are identified, enacting any
legislation would serve no purpose. Under the prevailing circumstances, it is
advisable for India to adopt the private OSRO system implemented in Canada,
China and the United States. The United States actively facilitates the private
OSRO by laying down standards and certifying them based on periodical
verification.
26. The Coast Guard is best suited to serve as Competent Authority for
certification and periodical verification of the OSROs and facilitate
implementation. The Coast Guard would also draw up the inventory
specifications for each class of OSRO.
66
Ushering a Step Change
27. Implementation of the OSRO system will not alter the existing
responsibilities of either the ports or the merchant vessels calling at ports in
India. The pre-contractual arrangement will rather guarantee response on
behalf of the ship owner, in the event of an oil spill. The Coast Guard will
continue to function as the Central Coordinating Agency for oil spills in Indian
waters and respond, as required by the circumstances of the case, with its own
inventory and by pooling resources available with other agencies. The OSRO
will be called out to supplement and add to scale of resources coordinated by
the Coast Guard. Thus, implementation of OSRO system will add to, and
significantly strengthen the existing capacity for oil spill response in the
country besides guaranteeing response on the ship owners behalf in any
eventuality.
Enabling Legislation
29. Legislation enabling private OSRO would be the essential first step. All
vessels destined to an Indian port may be required to have a valid contractual
arrangement in place with a certified oil spill response organization prior to
arrival in Indian waters. The reference to this requirement may be specified in a
suitable Part under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 and proposed to read as
follows:
(i) identifies the name and address of the vessel's insurer or, in
the case of a subscription policy, the name and address of the lead
67
Ushering a Step Change
30. The Ministry of Shipping will be responsible for verifying whether all
shipping companies, including all companies, have tie-ups with OSROs for
tier 3 pollution response facilities.
OSRO Facilitation
31. Efforts at both, the enabling legislation and mechanism to implement the
pre-contractual OSRO arrangement would require to be progressed
concurrently.
33. As part of the OSRO facilitation process, the Coast Guard will define the
matrix of contracting requirements for ships with different class of OSRO based
on its cargo (oil in bulk, liquid HNS, etc.) and intended area of operation (within
harbour, entering port, performing cargo transfer at sea within specified
proximity of port, etc), in consultation with the DG Shipping.
34. Further, the Coast Guard will specify the inventory for each Class of
OSRO and issue Guidelines/ SOP for qualification of an OSRO. The private
OSRO would be required to identify and ensure the availability of specified
personnel and equipment within stipulated response times in the specific
geographic areas.
35. The private OSRO, in addition, shall have such other arrangements for
oil transfer, salvage, emergency underwater repair, oil retrieval through hot-
tapping methods, shoreline clean-up, etc. The Coast Guard will supervise the
oil spill response and prescribe the level of clean-up required. The liability to
pay for the clean-up costs will rest with the polluter at all times.
68
Ushering a Step Change
Implementation Methodology
TRACK 1 TRACK 2
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS FACILITATION PROCESS
1. Drafting of legislation by DGS 1. Seeking Expression of Interest
2. Stakeholder consultation through advertisement and listing
of Interested Parties
3. Circulation of Draft Cabinet Note
2. Qualification of Interested Parties
4. Approval by Cabinet 3. Publishing of Qualified OSROs
4. OSRO enter into service level
Agreement with ship owners
5. Bringing of legislation into force 5. Operationalisation of OSRO
69
Places of Refuge 8
Introduction
1. When a ship has suffered an incident, the best way of preventing damage
or pollution from its progressive deterioration is to transfer its cargo and
bunkers, and to repair the casualty. Such an operation is best carried out in a
place of refuge. However, to bring such a ship into a place of refuge near a
coast may endanger the coastal state, both economically and from the
environmental point of view, and local authorities and populations may
strongly object to the operation. Thus, there exists a requirement to identify the
places of refuge.
Background
3. The notion of providing refuge for ships in distress was raised at IMO
during the late 1980s, when the Legal Committee was considering the draft
provisions of the International Convention on Salvage (eventually adopted in
1989). At the time, it was suggested that there should be an obligation on
States to admit vessels in distress into their ports. Although this was endorsed
by some delegations, others expressed doubt on the desirability of including
such a "public law" rule in a private law convention. It was also pointed out
that the interests of coastal States would need to be duly taken into account in
any such provision. Doubt was also expressed whether such a provision would
in fact affect the decisions of the authorities of coastal States in specific cases.
Ushering a Step Change
5. Ships with structural damage and a dirty or volatile cargo in their tanks
are not among the most welcomed visitors in the coastal waters of any State
and there is little point in attempting to apportion blame on those who have
made decisions to keep stricken ships away from their coastlines. Nonetheless,
in some cases, a refusal could result in compounding the problem, which may
ultimately result in endangering life, the ship and the environment.
6. During the debate on places of refuge, the legal issues surrounding this
concept were analysed and the question was asked whether a coastal State is
under an obligation, or at least is not precluded, under international law, from
providing a place (where a ship can be taken when it is disabled, damaged or
otherwise in distress and is posing a serious risk of pollution), in order to
remove the ship from the threat of danger and undertake repairs or otherwise
deal with the situation.
71
Ushering a Step Change
Relevant provisions include: UNCLOS, Articles 194, 195, 198, 199, 211, 221,
225; Salvage Convention, Article 9; and Facilitation Convention, Article V(2).
10. By focusing more on human life and safety rather than on what is to be
done with the ship in cases of force majeure or distress, these provisions do not
of themselves give a right of entry to a place of refuge, nor do they explicitly
refer to the question of a coastal State's obligation to establish places of refuge.
On the other hand, neither do they preclude such a principle.
11. The IMO Guidelines on places of refuge have been developed in a manner
which retains a proper and equitable balance between the rights and interests
of coastal States and the need to render assistance to ships which are damaged
or disabled or otherwise in distress at sea.
12. It would be highly desirable if, taking the IMO Guidelines into account,
India designated places of refuge for use when confronted with situations
involving ships (laden tankers, in particular) in need of assistance off its coasts
and, accordingly, drew up relevant emergency plans.
IMO Resolution
13. Resolution A.949 (23) Guidelines on places of refuge for ships in need of
assistance are intended for use when a ship is in need of assistance but the
safety of life is not involved. The guidelines recognize that, when a ship has
suffered an incident, the best way of preventing damage or pollution from its
progressive deterioration is to transfer its cargo and bunkers, and to repair the
casualty. Such an operation is best carried out in a place of refuge. However,
to bring such a ship into a place of refuge near a coast may endanger the
coastal State, both economically and from the environmental point of view, and
local authorities and populations may strongly object to the operation.
Therefore, granting access to a place of refuge could involve a political decision
72
Ushering a Step Change
14. The issue of identifying suitable places of refuge on the coasts of India
has been pending for implementation for nearly ten years now. The IMO
Guidelines on Places of Refuge was adopted on 05 Dec 03.
15. The 14th MSDC meeting held at Mumbai on 7th-8th January 2013
directed DG Shipping to identify one or two disused ports on either of the
coasts to locate places of refuge for disabled/ unseaworthy vessels. This will
result in providing safety to the lives of the crew and also prevent marine
accidents and pollution.
16. Recent incidents of m.v. Pratibha Tapi and m.v. Pratibha Indrayani have
necessitated the requirement of priority identification of places of refuge in
Indian waters. The vessel m.t. Pratibha Tapi with a skeletal crew of one
electrical officer, two seamen and one cook, and containing 70 tons of fuel
remained anchored about 2.3 nautical miles West of Mudh Island, Mumbai
ever since she was placed under court arrest on 29th January 2013 until the
intervention of the Honble High Court, Mumbai on 17th June 2013, directing
the Director General of Shipping to decide on a suitable salvor who will safely
tow the vessel to a safe anchorage at Mumbai port or securely beach it,
depending on whether the vessel comes with or without anchor. The vessel
m.t Pratibha Indrayani, similarly under court arrest, was being manned by five
deck cadets and containing about 100-150 tons fuel onboard, when dragging
anchor 10.5 nautical miles West of Manori Island, Mumbai. It was again the
intervention of the Honble High Court, Mumbai in June 2013 which averted a
potential oil spill from the vessel.
17. According to data available with the Indian Ports Association, there exist
a total of thirteen unused/ disused non-major ports on the coasts of India,
including five in the Andaman and Nicobar. Of these, seven are in Odisha, four
in Kerala, and one each in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh.
1
The second resolution, A.950 (23) Maritime Assistance Services (MAS), has been implemented
by India by designating the DG Shipping as maritime assistance service (MAS).
73
Ushering a Step Change
18. The Committee proposes that two unused/ disused ports each on the
west and east coast may be designate as places of refuge. Sachana in Gujarat
and Thalassery in Kerala may be considered on the west coast, and Chandipur
in Odisha and Bheemunipatnam in Andhra Pradesh on the east coast of India.
It may also be necessary to designate a place on the Maharashtra to cater to
any incident in the high traffic density port of Mumbai.
74
Ushering a Step Change
75
Review of Contributions
to IOPC Fund1 9
Introduction
1. Part of preparedness for oil spill disasters requires that a State insure
itself against damages caused by marine oil spill disasters. India is party to the
International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund of the International Maritime
Organisation while the United States and China have chosen to remain non-
party. This paper examines the hypothesis that particularly large oil importers
such as India may not stand to benefit by being party to the Fund Convention.
1 th
Based on paper presented by DIG AA Hebbar at the 18 NOSDCP meeting on 31 May 2013 at Dehradun, India.
Ushering a Step Change
claims. The study will examine whether Indias annual subscription to Fund is
better invested in the country for building stockpiles of oil spill response
equipment by the Coast Guard and/ or contributing to the corpus
administered by the Ministry of Agriculture for the benefit of coastal
communities, particularly fishermen that may be affected in the event of a spill.
5. The hypothesis on which the paper is founded is that larger the volume
of oil imports of a State, lesser the benefit to that State of accession to the
International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund.
77
Ushering a Step Change
result. The owner of a ship carrying more than 2,000 tons of oil in bulk as
cargo is required to maintain insurance or other financial security.
Fund
8. The Fund was adopted in 1971, replaced by its 1992 protocol and
amended in 2000. Its main purpose is to establish an international fund to
provide victims of oil pollution damage with additional compensation
supplementary to CLC. The aggregate amount of compensation payable by the
IOPC Fund per incident in certain events (including the amount payable under
CLC) shall not exceed 203 million SDR under Fund as a general rule. In
addition, its 2003 protocol established a Supplementary Fund for additional
compensation for pollution damage in contracting states to the protocol. The
total amount of compensation payable per incident is 750 million SDR
including the amount payable under CLC and Fund. This amount is
comparable to the maximum amount of compensation payable by the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund under the United States Oil Pollution Act, 1990, which
stands at US$1 billion per incident.
9. India is currently the fourth largest importer of oil in the world. Only,
United States, China and Japan import more oil than India. Of these countries,
United States and China are not party to the Fund. Japan, though party to the
Fund has many factors in its favor including inter alia large number of spills,
relatively huge cleanup costs, and severe weather.
78
Ushering a Step Change
Advantage Japan
12. A review of Fund incidents over eighteen years between 1979 and 1997
reveals that 34 of the 67 incidents related to spills in Japanese waters and all
except one involved Japanese flag vessels, the exception being the Russian
flagged Nakhodka which spilled an equally exceptional 17,500 tonnes of
medium fuel oil. In terms of numbers of claims on the IOPC Fund, 50% of the
claims are by Japan in respect of Japanese flagged vessels. Hence, it has been
absolutely prudent on part of Japan to subscribe to the oil spill compensation
regime, notwithstanding its status as largest receiver of oil amongst States
parties to the Fund.
79
Ushering a Step Change
80
Ushering a Step Change
14. India became a party to the 1992 Fund on 21st June 2000 and
denounced the 1971 Fund on the same date. In the year preceding its
denouncement of the 1971 Fund, India ranked first in terms of contributing oil,
with a total contribution of 54.60%. There were no reports from India in the
years 2000 and 2001. Thereafter, over ten years since 2002, Indias
contributing oil of the IOPC Fund has climbed steadily from sixth rank at
6.79% to second position at 11.65% of the total contributing oil of 168 415 558
tonnes. As of 31 Dec 11, India was second only to Japan which received
15.29% of the total contributions in States party to the 1992 Fund. The near
doubling of percentage contribution of total oil receipts between 2002 and 2011
also implies proportional increase in Indias annual contribution payable to the
General Fund, apart from proportional contributions required to be made to
Major Claims Fund.
Indias Contribution to IOPC Fund: 2010-2012
Contributor 2010 () 2011 () 2012 ()
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd 1715971.28 1285630.82 187259.70
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd 351550.02 242247.72 47394.76
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd 545204.06 382374.68 60698.42
Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd 439795.18 318080.80 41924.37
Reliance Industries Ltd 1267562.90 1056402.05 209002.16
Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd 1266.64 3743.98
Kochi Refineries Ltd C/o BPCL 42216.93
Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd 28411.92
Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd 2896.14
The Tata Power Company 10111.20 9241.03
Total 4330194.64 3368768.73 550023.39
81
Ushering a Step Change
Compensation
15. According to Coast Guard statistics, more than 80 spills are known to
have occurred in Indian waters whereas compensation was claimed and
awarded to the Coast Guard in only 15 of the 80 incidents and compensation
claims are outstanding in respect of five pollution response incidents. Of the 15
incidents awarded compensation, the quantity of spill is unknown in five
incidents, including two from ONGC pipelines in Mumbai offshore. In the
remaining 10 incidents, the three highest amounts of compensation are
`3.5 lac/ton, `1 lac/ton, and `20,000/ton in Star Leikanger, Maritime Wisdom,
and the Innovative-1.
17. In India, the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 provides for public
liability- insurance for the purpose of providing immediate relief to the persons
affected by accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance. The
Act provides for strict liability for death, injury or damage and the claimant is
not required to plead and establish that the death, injury or damage in respect
of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or
default of any person. The Act limits the liability by requiring the owner to take
out an insurance only for an amount equal to the paid-up capital of the
undertaking handling any hazardous substance and owned or controlled by
that owner or fifty crore rupees, whichever is less. However, more importantly,
hazardous substance means any substance or preparation, defined as
hazardous substance under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of
1986), and exceeding such quantity as may be specified, which does not include
hydrocarbons.
18. Notably, the Polluter Pays Principle has been extensively interpreted by
the Honble Supreme Court which has clearly set out the conditions for
applicability of this principle in environmental issues. At least three examples
82
Ushering a Step Change
could be cited from the case law of the Honble Supreme Court of India. In M.C.
Mehta and Another v. Union of India and Others (1987) 1 SCC 395 popularly
known as Oleum Gas Leak Case, the Honble Supreme Court held that an
enterprise engaged in an hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is required
to indemnify all those who suffer on account of the activity regardless of
whether it is carried on carefully or not. Further, the measure of compensation
must be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise because
such compensation must have a deterrent effect. The larger and more
prosperous the enterprise, the greater must be the amount of compensation
payable by it for the harm caused on account of an accident. In Indian Council
for Enviro Legal Action & Ors v Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 212, the Honble
Supreme Court held that, The Polluter Pays principle demands that the
financial costs of preventing or remedying damage caused by pollution should
lie with the undertakings which cause the pollution, or produce the goods
which cause the pollution. Under the principle it is not the role of Government
to meet the costs involved in either prevention of such damage, or in carrying
out remedial action, because the effect of this would be to shift the financial
burden of the pollution incident to the taxpayer.
Conclusion
22. On a more fundamental note, the principles of fairness and equity are
suspected to be breached on numerous counts viz., the exemption to presently
83
Ushering a Step Change
thirty-six States receiving oil below 150,000 ton threshold, usage of quantity of
oil receipts as the sole determinant of contribution to the Fund despite at least
eighteen other factors contributing to the risk and significant regional
variations in cleanup costs.
23. The Committee strongly believes that a review will accrue in significant
savings of foreign exchange expenditure to the nation and eliminate
dependence on a foreign agency for compensation. Simultaneously, enhanced
opportunities will emerge for investment in building stockpiles of oil spill
response equipment and compensating coastal communities that may be
affected by a marine oil spill.
84
Incident Response Experience 10
Introduction
1. There have been over eighty spills in Indian waters since 1982, and most
of these occurred in port waters. Experience indicates that Mumbai port has
been particularly vulnerable. The 1000 ton spill from m.v. Lala Lajpat Rai in
Mumbai harbor was one the earliest disaster. More recent spills include m.v.
Maritime Wisdom off Goa on 23rd March 2005, m.v. Ocean Seraya off Karwar
on 30th May 2006, and the m.v. MSC Chitra in 2010 (700 tons) and m.v Rak
Carrier (340 tons) in 2011, both of which occurred in Mumbai harbour.
Significant response to potential threat of large scale spill included the m.v.
Asian Forest off Mangalore in July 2009 containing 366 tons of oil and the m.v.
Black Rose off Paradip harbor which cost nearly 80 crore rupees in recovery of
trapped oil. This chapter chooses to present a brief narrative of our experience
in responding to select incidents of oil spills and potential threat of oil spills.
2. m.v. Asian Forest, a 122m long, 13,600 GT, Hong Kong flagged Bulk
Carrier developed stability related problems after she left the New Mangalore
Port on 16th July 2009. She had embarked about 13,000 tonnes of Iron Ore at
New Mangalore Port and due to the shifting of the ore, the ship developed list to
port. Coast Guard Ship Sankalp operating in proximity rendered rescue
assistance as the vessel listed more than 40 degrees and the master advised
the crew to abandon the ship. All 23 crew members were rescued. The
abandoned vessel capsized two days later and sank 11.5 miles off Mangalore Lt
Ushering a Step Change
with 13,000 tonnes of iron ore cargo, 366 tons Furnace Fuel Oil and 45 tonnes
of Diesel oil. The fuel oil which was kept as reserve and that in the pipelines
and bilges leaked out periodically causing minor spills which were responded
from time to time. However, breach of integrity of fuel oil tanks due to any
other extraneous factor could not be ruled out and hence the Coast Guard
advised the port and ship owner to remove the oil from the ship. The ship
owner arranged for salvage of the trapped oil through M/s Smit Salvors who
completed the removal by January 2010.
3. m.v. Black Rose, a 187 metre long, 32 year old, 13600 GT Bulk Carrier of
Mongolia flag, developed stability related problems after she left Paradip Port
on 9th September 2009. She had embarked about 24,000 tonnes of iron ore
from Paradip and due to shifting of cargo the ship developed a list to starboard
within thirty minutes of leaving harbor. The master called for rescue assistance
as the vessel listed to more than 50 degrees and advised the crew to abandon
ship. 26 crew members, who abandoned the ship including the Captain, were
rescued by the Coast Guard and Paradip Pilot launch. The abandoned vessel
capsized and sank soon in position 3.5 nautical miles southeast of Paradip
with iron ore cargo, 928 tons of Furnace Fuel Oil and 48 tonnes of Diesel oil. It
was found that the vessel was found operating with a fraudulent insurance
certificate. The Paradip Port Trust issued a global tender for removing the
trapped oil inside the ship in view of ecological sensitivity in areas surrounding
the port, and the presence of rookeries of the endangered Olive Ridley turtles.
86
Ushering a Step Change
Salvers commenced oil removal action in mid October 2009 and all the oil was
removed by mid November 2009, thereby removing the threat of oil spill from
the sunken ship.
m.v. Malavika
4. An oil spill was reported at 1600 hrs on 12th Apr 2010 by Essar Shipping
from their vessel m.v. Malavika at Gopalpur anchorage, Odisha. The barge
Sneh IV whilst casting off had made contact with m.v. Malavika in way of a fuel
oil tank that ruptured the ships hull resulting in spillage of fuel oil from the
said tank. Approximately 8 tons of fuel oil escaped. Coast Guard ship with
integrated helicopter on board was diverted from patrol area and the ship
immediately launched helo for aerial recee to check the extent of oil spill. The
helicopter carried out aerial survey of oil spill expanse. Oil Spill Dispersant was
sprayed by a Coast Guard Dornier to neutralise the oil spill while cleanup
action was taken by the Gopalpur port authority and the state government.
5. On 7th August 2010, at 0950 hrs, the container vessel m.v. MSC Chitra
carrying about 1200 containers from Jawaharlal Nehru Port (JNPT) while
leaving harbour, collided with an inbound bulk carrier m.v. Khalija-III, leading
to grounding of m.v. Chitra near the Prongs reef light. The impact of the
collision ruptured two fuel tanks situated on the port side of mv Chitra. The
ships crews were safely evacuated and the vessel started to list dangerously to
port. The rupture of the tanks led to oil spill at a steady rate of about 20 tons
per hour. As the South West monsoon was active, the prevailing strong winds
and sea state prevented the laying of containment booms by the Coast Guard.
The port was affected by the high tides which ranged upto 4 meters. The port
could not take any preventive action to contain the oil spill as they did not have
87
Ushering a Step Change
any response equipment. The situation worsened when the tide changed two
hours after the collision, the continuous impact of the waves listed to the vessel
further and about 300 containers fell overboard making it dangerous for
navigation. The Coast Guard deployed 5 ships, 2 helicopters and 2 Dorniers in
pollution response configuration and applied oil spill dispersant to mitigate the
damage caused by the effects of the heavy oil. The tidal currents in
combination with the local currents carried the spilt oil in the south and other
coastal areas seriously affecting the fishing community. Port traffic was closed
due to floating containers, several ships and tankers waiting outside for entry
were forced to the outer anchorage area. In addition, it was found that 43
containers IMDG cargoes and some of which fell overboard and were washed
ashore.
6. Coast Guard ships and aircraft relentlessly carried out the oil spill
response in-spite of the dangerous containers floating inside the harbour. As
the leaking spot of the tanks could not be reached by the salvage team, and at
the same time, it could not be transferred to other tanks, the Coast Guard took
a conscious decision to allow the oil to drain from the two ruptured tanks. The
oil egress from the tanks stopped after 48 hours. By then, 60 kilometers of the
shoreline area, including the residential areas, fisheries, mangroves, ports and
historic islands were affected by the heavy fuel oil. The remaining oil at sea was
neutralized by the Coast Guard over the next three days. It was found that a
majority of the oil that washed ashore did not emulsify due to the effect of the
dispersants applied by the Coast Guard. Over the following two months, a
dedicated shoreline response team including a special team from Oil Spill
Response Limited, Singapore undertook shoreline clean-up of the affected
areas. In some areas, the clean-up went on upto four months. The port traffic
88
Ushering a Step Change
was effectively closed for five days, and only limited movements with a mine
sweeper escort was allowed. The restriction of the ship movements, severely
affected the logistics chain supporting the shipping movements. The harbour
was closed for fishing for about a month, thereby affected the fishermen and
fish related traders due to unemployment. The Maharashtra Government,
Mumbai Port, Coast Guard and other affected parties submitted claims for
clean-up and for causing pollution damage on the shipowner. The shipowner
employed professional salvers immediately and all out efforts were made to
remove all the containers drifting and sunken containers. By end August 2010,
almost all the sunken containers were identified and removed. The remaining
containers onboard were safely removed by November 2010. The trapped oil of
about 1200 tonnes of fuel oil was removed by the salvers.
Lessons Learnt
7. Several lessons were learnt from the m.v. Chitra oil spill. The pollution
response equipment available with the Coast Guard were not compatible to
contain the oil spill in the fast tidal current. The shoreline was mostly rocky
and inshore boom laying was not found useful. For effective protection of
mangroves, there is a need for deflection booms. The vessels deployed for the
response would require modification to carry pollution response equipment for
skimming operations. There is no private oil spill response provider available to
undertake oil spill response on behalf of the polluting ship or on behalf of the
port. The State Government wss ill prepared to prevent the spill reaching their
shorelines and also to undertake shoreline clean-up. The contingency plan
prepared by the port and oil handling agencies do not cater for complete
response for more than 100 tons. Hence, proposals were made to augment the
pollution response capacity to the ports by the Ministry through the Oil Cess
Fund.
8. The Coast Guard being the Central Coordinating Agency (CCA) for oil
spill response, recommended the Shipping Ministry to direct all the ports to
mandatorily maintain oil spill response facility either by them or through the
service providers. A separate Committee was appointed to undertake the
efficiency test of all pollution response equipment available with the Coast
Guard inventory, to recommend the necessary legislative measures to make the
polluting ships undertake the clean-up immediately and also to pay immediate
89
Ushering a Step Change
9. The 28 year old bulk carrier developed cracks in its bow section and
sank off Mumbai on 4th August 2011. The vessel had 290 tons of FFO and 50
tons of diesel onboard at the time of sinking. The Coast Guard, in coordination
with the Navy, rescued all 30 crew from the sinking ship. The following day an
oil spill was noticed from the vessel. Coast Guard ships and aircraft were
deployed under operation Parayavaran Suraksha 02/11 to respond to the oil
spill. Most of the spills were neutralised by the Coast Guard using dispersants
at sea. Coast Guard pollution control vessel Samudra Prahari along with other
Coast Guard ships and Coast Guard helicopter participated in the pollution
response operation. A total of 8,890 liters of dispersant was sprayed. The
response operations were called off by the Coast Guard on 21st August 2011.
About 31 ship days and 22 hours of aircraft sorties were utilized in responding
to the oil spill A few isolated patches of oil were reported ashore and cleaned up
by the local authorities. 70 workers from Bombay Municipal Corporation
90
Ushering a Step Change
10. A boat Al Hussaini under police custody since 8th April 2012 for
suspected oil smuggling capsized alongside in Mallet Bunder, Mumbai Port
Trust (MbPT) spilling oil in the basin waters on 27th May 2012. Coast Guard
Pollution Response Team (West) was notified of the incident by the Office of the
Deputy Conservator of Mumbai Port Trust with a request to support response
operations. The Officer-in-charge and members of the Pollution Response Team
promptly reached the scene of incident with response equipment. A spill of
thick FFO covering three fourths of the basin area was observed to have
emanated from the partially capsized boat. Thick concentrated oil patches were
also found near boats and barges berthed alongside. In a coordinated response
operation between the Coast Guard and MbPT, a river boom was laid at the
mouth of basin with assistance of a hired boat of MbPT for containment. 3 tons
of furnace oil and 5-6 tons of oily water sludge were recovered in the joint
operation.
91
Recommendations 11
The recommendations of the Committee are grouped under legislative,
administrative and operational measures and appended in the succeeding
paragraphs.
Legislative Measures
1. Section 356M of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 regarding Oil Pollution
Cess may be amended as follows:
(a) In clause (1), delete [not exceeding fifty paise], and delete [Provided
that no cess shall be levied on a ship at any port if the ship produce
evidence of having paid such levy at the same or any other port in India
within a period of three months immediately preceding its present call at
the port.]
(b) In clause (1), amend [oil] to read as [oil and noxious liquid
substance]
2. The rate of Oil Pollution Cess collected under the provisions of section
356M read with section 356O of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 may be
increased from fifty paise per tonne to rupees two per tonne by notification in
the Official Gazette
(e) To provide for emergency oil pollution response including but not
limited to Emergency Towing Vessels and salvage assistance;
4. The OPRC Convention 1990 may be given legal force by incorporating its
provisions in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 and rules, in a time bound
manner.
(a) Power to Intervene and Issue Directions to take any action of any
kind whatsoever, including requiring ships to be moved or destruction of
a vessel, in the Exclusive Economic Zone of India, for purpose of
preventing/ reducing risk of pollution by a hazardous substance, where
hazardous substance means oil and includes any other substance which
93
Ushering a Step Change
94
Ushering a Step Change
may be specified in a suitable Part under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 and
is proposed to read as follows:
(i) identifies the name and address of the vessel's insurer or, in
the case of a subscription policy, the name and address of the lead
insurer who provides pollution insurance coverage in respect of the
vessel,
7. Tanker above 150 GT and other merchant ships carrying Bunker fuel
more than 200 tons may be required to compulsorily establish service
agreement with oil spill cleanup response service provider in India, by
amendment to Merchant Shipping Act, 1958.
10. The strict liability regime the Civil Liability Convention, 1992 may be
extended to oil tanker carrying less than 2000 tons of cargo in bulk, by
amendment to Merchant Shipping Act, 1958.
95
Ushering a Step Change
14. The Ministry of Finance may grant exemption from customs duty, under
section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, on permanent basis, in respect of any
equipment imported into India, for the exclusive purpose of combating marine
oil spills.
Administrative Measures
96
Ushering a Step Change
(e) In a coastal state, the Port Officer is to deposit the Cess amount
through the Maritime Board/ Port Department, to the account of Central
Government on monthly basis by the 5th of every month; and after due
reconciliation at the level of Maritime Board or Ports Department, a
Monthly Statement rendered to the Ministry of Shipping, Government of
India, along with details of vessel, quantity loaded/ discharged, amount
collected and payment details;
(i) The concerned officer shall be liable for action under various
provisions of the MS Act; and
16. The Ministry of Shipping may issue directions requiring major ports and
coastal States to frame legislation for oil pollution prevention, preparedness,
response and cooperation in a time bound manner including inter alia:
(b) the role and responsibilities of the port in dealing with oil spills or
other effects of pollution, including any obligation of the port regarding
the provision of suitable equipment, resources and personnel;
97
Ushering a Step Change
17. A case may be taken up with the IOPC Fund for an amendment to the
formula for deciding on contributions to the IOPC Fund recognizing that India
has never claimed any compensation whatsoever from the 1971 or the 1992
Fund whereas its current contributions of over 12% share of total receipts in
the year 2011 is second only to Japan, and further recognizing that principles
of fairness and equity are possibly at stake, particularly on account of the fact
that quantity of oil receipts is the sole determinant of contribution to the Fund
whereas a host of factors contribute to the risk, and significant regional
variations exist in cleanup costs.
Operational Measures
18. The Ministry of Shipping may issue directions requiring port facilities to
comply with specified planning standards for inventory of equipment for
containment, recovery and temporary storage, and dispersing of oil spill.
19. The Ministry of Shipping may issue directions requiring port facilities to
undertake pre-booming, or where pre-booming is not feasible, stationing a
dedicated oil pollution response vessel in vicinity, of oil tankers engaged in
discharging oil alongside, or at SPM, or transferring to another vessel.
20. The Ministry of Shipping may issue directions requiring port facilities to
comply with specified planning standards for environmental protection of port
facilities including for transfer sites and shoreline cleanup.
21. The Ministry of Shipping may nominate a Director level officer in the
Ministry of Shipping as nodal officer for joint inspection of ports issue suitable
directions for regular conduct of joint inspection of major ports on an annual
basis.
98