SS Norway chronological events - May 2003

ssMaritime.com & ssMaritime.net

With Reuben Goossens

Maritime Historian

SS Norway, ex SS France

Broken Up as “Blue Lady”

New & Updated Timeline

This photo was taken on May 12, 2008 – Today - all of her bow and stern has gone!

NCL & NCLA are simply NOT worth cruising with!

It is not with joy that I publish this image of what was one a great Liner and cruise ship, but it will remind us what Chinese/Malaysian Casino operators Genting Corp owned Star Cruises and NCL/NCLA Cruises have done to the SS Norway and now to the SS Oceanic (ex SS Independence). Obviously the SS United States will be next on their hit list as she is badly neglected and rotting away at her berth in Philadelphia! ssMaritime and on my cruise site Cruise-Australia have placed a BAN on Star Cruises and NCL!

SS Norway as we love to remember her!

SS Norway looking simply magnificent

Chronology of events: May 2003 to May 2008

25 May 2003 – Shortly after arriving in Miami after a cruise there is an explosion in the boiler room which cripples the ship.

27 June – SS Norway is towed from Miami by the Dutch tug Smit Wijs.

21 July – Colin Veitch announces that SS Norway will head for Bremerhaven and laid up at Lloyd Werft for the purpose of obtaining costing for repairs.

17 March 2004 – Colin Veitch announces the Norway is no longer a part of the NCL fleet and that she will not return to the American market. Norway is to be used to accommodate staff working on the Pride of America.

23 May 2005 – SS Norway departs under tow for Malaysia.

28 June – Norway passes Cape Town.

19 August – at noon, SS Norway anchors off Port Klang (Kuala Lumpur). That same month Bangladeshi and Indian breakers inspect the ship. Norway is renamed Blue Lady.

28 December – SS Norway is sold to Bangladeshi breakers.

6 January 2006 – SS Blue Lady departs Port Klang for Chittagong Bangladesh. Due to the International asbestos laws having been broken, as well as massive opposition by Greenpeace, BAN and other organisations, including ssMaritime.com, the sale is cancelled and Blue Lady is returned to Port Klang.

March – Bleu Ribband/Gulf Dessert LLC commences “Project Dubai” in hand with the ssMaritime “Save a Classic Liner Campaign” The plan is to have her placed in Dubai and establish her as a luxury hotel, tourist centre, restaurants, and museum.

The entry of Blue Lady in the Indian waters and the subsequent developments shows violation of Basel Convention on trans-boundary movement of hazardous wastes, breach of October 2003 Order of the Supreme Court and perpetuation of illegalities:

24 March, 2006: R K Vaish, Joint Secretary, Union Ministry of Environment and Forests issued an order dated 24^th March for the “Constitution of a Committee of Technical Experts with respect to the directions of the Supreme Court of India dated 17.2.2006 in the matter of W.P. (C) No. 657 of 1995 on Management of Hazardous Wastes” appointing Dr Prodipto Ghosh, Secretary, Union Ministry of Environment and Forests as the Chairman of the Committee with Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board, Union Ministry of Environment and Forests as its Member Convenor. As per the Terms of Reference of the Committee, it was supposed to submit its report to the Supreme Court within eight weeks.

5 May, 2006: Lady is towed with 33 crew on board and is towed by tugs Seaways and Intersurf, to Fujerah UAE. A letter issued by Malaysian authorities states that the ship was going to Dubai for repair, presumably based on a declaration by the ship's owners. But this was misleading, as the ships destination was in fact India. The ship has made several attempts to reach scrap yards, including an aborted attempt late last year when the Bangladesh Government prohibited it from entering the country on health and environmental grounds.

7 May – After her short stay in Fujerah, Blue lady sails around and around, eventually heading for India

12 May, 2006: An application (IA 29) was filed by the applicant Gopal Krishna in the Supreme Court to ensure that the ship is not allowed entry in violation of the existing directions of the Supreme Court dated 14.10.2003. The Court issued notices to the concerned authorities including the Technical Experts Committee on Management of Hazardous Wastes relating to Ship breaking headed by Prodipto Ghosh, Secretary, Union Environment Ministry.

13 May, 2006: Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) barred the entry of Blue Lady in the Indian Territorial waters.

15 May, 2006: Rajeev Reniwal, Hariyana Ship Demolitions Pvt Ltd wrote to Dr Prodipto Ghosh, Chairman, Technical Experts Committee on Management of Hazardous Wastes relating to Ship breaking saying “we are surprised and shocked to learn that Government of India has directed the concerned authorities to retrain (restrain) the ship “Blue Lady” from entering Indian territorial waters on the basis of orders passed by the Honourabel (honourable) Supreme Court of India, without giving any prior opportunity of being heard to the affected parties.” He further said, “It is our request that the ship should be allowed to come up to Anchorage at Alang/Sosiya”. He said the cost of holding the ship with the two tugs that is towing her is 30, 000 US dollars per day. He gave an undertaking saying, “In case the committee decides not to allow the ship for breaking at Alang, then we hereby undertake to tow the ship away into international water, which can be done with ease”. In his letter to the Committee Reniwal did not disclose his relationship with the ship named Blue Lady. The letter had six annexure's none of them has ever been submitted to the court.

17 May, 2006: Hariyana Ship Demolitions Pvt Ltd wrote an unsigned letter to Dr Prodipto Ghosh, Chairman Technical Experts Committee on Management of Hazardous Wastes relating to Ship breaking (appointed by the Supreme Court in February, 2006 while hearing Le Clemenceau case) informing him of their meeting with the Minister of State for Environment. Hariyana Ship Demolitions Pvt Ltd stated the location of the ship on 17^th May, 2006 saying that “The convoy shall be soon coming north in the Indian Ocean towards Lakshadweep” adding that there “13 Indian crew on board” on her voyage from Port Klang, Malaysia to Alang. Hariyana Ship Demolition Pvt. Ltd. suggested that the inspection of the ship “can only be done so at safe anchorage at Alang”. It appears that no documents were submitted to seek ship-breaking including the ones showing its ownership.

20 May 2006: Technical Experts Committee on Management of Hazardous Wastes relating to Ship breaking decided to hear Hariyana Ship Demolitions Pvt Ltd who according to the proceedings of the Committee’s Third Meeting had “purchased the ship from Bridgend Shipping Ltd”. The Committee took note of the undertaking by the Hariyana Ship Demolitions Pvt Ltd saying “they would tow the ship away into international waters”. It clarified that “the ship would continue to be manned round the clock while at anchor”. As per the proceedings, the ship has around 1,240 MT of asbestos. Data on PCB content was also submitted but GEPIL clarified “it would not be technically feasible to quantify PCB containing material”. GMB and GPCB participated in the deliberations of the Committee. “The ship prepares its Interim Report after its Third Meeting of the Committee of Technical Experts on Management of Hazardous Wastes Relating to Ship-breaking.

27 May 2006: Following invitation from Environment Ministry and CPCB, submissions by Sanjay Parikh, Gopal Krishna & Ravi Agarwal to the Technical Experts Committee on Management of Hazardous Wastes relating to Ship breaking sought adherence to the Supreme Court order of 14^th October, 2003, Basel Convention, Hazardous Waste Rules, 2003 and Factories Act. They stressed on the prior decontamination of the ship in the country of origin.

30 May, 2006: Interim Report submitted to the Supreme Court along with I.A. No. 30 by the MoEF. The relief claimed was only with regard to “anchoring”. In this I.A., the MoEF had annexed the letters dated 15.5.2006 and 17.5.06 sent by Hariyana Ship Demolition Pvt. Ltd., claiming itself to be “bonafide purchaser”, to Shri Pradipto Ghosh, Chairman, Committee of Technical Experts on ship breaking. These letters of Hariyana Ship Demolition Pvt. Ltd. had inter alia stated "the currents in high seas in this part of the ocean are very strong especially when monsoon setting in. Therefore, it would not be a safe location to anchor ship as the current may break the Anchor and ship may start drifting.” It further stated: “In case the committee decides not to allow the ship for breaking at Alang, then we hereby undertake to tow the ship away into territorial water, which can be done with ease.” The said Hariyana Ship also pleaded human risks and problems regarding the crew.

In the interim report which was prepared by the technical committee, the following categorical undertaking of M/s Hariyana Ship Demolition Pvt. Ltd. was recorded. "As the ship cannot be safely anchored in the high sea, the cost of holding the ship in the high sea with the help of two tugs would be approximately in the range of US$ 30,000 per day. In view of the above they requested that safe anchorage of the ship at Alang in Indian territorial waters may be permitted. In case, it is finally decided not to permit dismantling of the vessel at Alang, they would tow their ship away into international waters." It was also stated that Vessel contains 1240 MT of Asbestos Containing Material (ACM). With regard to PCB it was said that "it would not be technically feasible to quantify PCB containing material". As regards beaching, the Technical Committee noted that keeping in view the fact that anchorage of ship for a long period of time during monsoon would not be advisable. However, the question of permission for dismantling of the ship was to be considered on the basis of hazardous material on the board and its safe handling on the basis of decommissioning plan to be submitted by M/s HSPDL.

5 June 2006: Reply filed by the applicant to the I.A. No. 30 moved by the MoEF. The applicant stated that the entry of ship is in violation of directions of the Supreme Court in 2003, and is illegal traffic under BASEL Convention as well as Hazardous Waste Rules of 2003.

5 June 2006: The Supreme Court allows Hariyana Ship Demolitions Pvt Ltd to anchor the Blue Lady off Alang on humanitarian grounds. It was observed by the Supreme Court that these directions shall not confer any equity on the owners of the ship. I.A. No. 30 was disposed of.

10June 2006: Permission to anchor the ship in territorial water “off Alang Port” granted by MoEF.

13 June 2006: Instead of anchoring in the Indian territorial waters, the ship turned around and towed to the UAE, docking at Fujairah (UAE) for two days before again being towed back to the edge of Indian territorial waters.

30 June 2006: Blue Lady anchored 35 nautical miles away from Alang at Pipavav Port after return from UAE. Whether any Authority has the required details about this activity of Blue Lady and what action has been taken or is proposed?

July – SS Blue Lady anchors 120 miles from Indian territorial waters, but soon she was given permission to enter territorial waters and she anchors near the breakers yard.

6 July – Serious negotiations between – Bleu Ribband/Gulf Dessert LLC and the owners continue.

11 July 2006: Inspection of Blue Lady by the Inspection Committee constituted by the Technical Committee. Two documents of the technical committee exists in the records of the Supreme Court:

(1) Report filed by Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. in its I.A. No.34 which claims to be the owner (substituting Hariyana Ship Demolition Pvt. Ltd.). In I.A. No. 34 of 2006 filed by the said Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. the inspection report is at pages 28 to 46. As per this report, on 8th July, 2006 there was a pre-inspection of ship followed by inspection on 11.7.06 by the inspection team. The "observations" in the said report as well as the "conclusions" are important: they are different from what has been put on record by the MoEF.

(2) There is also a report by the MoEF which is in volume XIV pages 4852 to 4939. The inspection report is at pages 4885 to 4930. The "observations" and conclusions in these documents are different. Further it is mentioned that there was an attempt for another inspection done on 26th July, 2006, when as per the report filed by Priya Blue, there was an inspection only on 11 July 2006.

29 July 2006: Report of the Technical Committee. The Technical Committee records on the basis of documents submitted by Hariyana Ship Demolitions Ltd that there is no quantification of PCBs made available either by M/S GEPIL or the Inspection Team. Approximate quantification done was that it would be less than 10 MT. The Committee says “that the ship Blue Lady can be accorded beaching permission”. It authorizes the GMB for the said purpose. It further says that the procedure to be followed after beaching would be in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee subject to final approval of the Supreme Court.

31 July 2006: Letter by one Priya Blue Industries Pvt Ltd (at page 51 of IA 34) to GMB claiming itself to be “new buyers of the above vessel”. It may be noted that all earlier processes were based on the ownership claim of Hariyana Ship Demolitions Pvt Ltd, the plan submitted by it of GEPIL claiming that it has all the facilities at its plot. The Priya Blue was never in picture; it is not made clear when it purchased the ship, if earlier than 29^th July, 2006 why it was not disclosed to the Committee. Whether it has all the facilities, an assessment of the hazardous waste etc has not been made clear. All the Supreme Court orders were passed on the basis of documents submitted by the Hariyana Ship Demolitions Pvt Ltd and the verification of those documents by the Technical Committee.

1st August 2006: Letter by M Subba Rao, MOEF asking the GMB to proceed further for according the beaching permission to the ship Blue Lady.

Business Standard reported that Hariyana Ship Demolitions Ltd. has sold the ship to Priya Blue Shipping Limited in 16 million US dollars.

3 August 2006: Letter by GMB to M/S Priya Blue Industries. (Page 47-48 of IA 34) It clearly says that the beaching permission shall be granted as per the various provisions of GMB Ship Recycling Regulation, 2003 and directions of the Supreme Court dated 14^th October, 2003. In addition, it says that the following conditions shall be fulfilled with necessary documentation “prior of beaching”. Condition number 15 specifically refers to direction No. 1 of the Supreme Court order of 2003.

15 August 2006: Blue lady beached in Alang approx. 4000 feet away from the shore. Shockingly, GMB allows beaching of the vessel in gross violation of its letter dated 3^rd August, 2006, which means, violation of Regulations 2003, Supreme Court order dated 14^th October 2003 and all the 20 conditions which were to be complied with “prior of beaching”. (Page 49 of IA 34). In fact the GMB “requested” Priya Blue to furnish the certificate/documents as agreed upon by Priya Blue in response to the letter dated 3^rd August 2006. No such response is on the records. Even as per the recommendations of the Technical Committee “ For obtaining beaching permission, the recycler has to submit documents as per Annexure 1 of the GMB Notification dated 5^th July, 2003.” No such documents were submitted before 15^th August, 2006 when beaching permission was granted.

17 August – The Supreme Court of India states “permission granted on 5^th of June 2006, was for anchoring at a safe place in the territorial waters of India off Alang.” It made it clear that “no permission whatsoever has been granted for breaking of the ship.”

25 August – Awaiting the next deliberation from the Indian Court.

30 August 2006: Final Report of the Technical Experts Committee on Management of Hazardous Wastes relating to Ship breaking submitted to Supreme Court signed by only Dr Prodipto Ghosh on basis of minutes of the Committee which was also signed by Dr Prodipto Ghosh. None of the other members have signed the report. It is customary for members of such Committee to sign the Final Report. The Supreme Court Monitoring Committee has followed this custom on Hazardous Wastes and also the Supreme Court Committee on Waste to Energy has done the same. In the Foreword of the Final Report Dr Ghosh says, “The Committee had the benefit of the report of the High Power Committee on Hazardous Wastes headed by Prof. M G K Menon (March 2002)…”

The Final Report takes note of asbestos victims in the ship-breaking industry and cites the “Medical Examination of the Asbestos Handlers” by a team of National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH) that concludes, “ The X ray examination by NIOH showed linear shadows on chest X rays of 15 (16 %) of 94 workers occupationally exposed to asbestos. These are consistent with asbestosis…” The NIOH team concludes and its recommendations are part of the Final Report saying, “The directives of Hon Supreme Court (1995) for asbestos exposed workers and the asbestos schedule of Factory Rules under the Factories Act should be strictly followed”. But it fails to seek compensation for the asbestos victims that is part of the Court’s 1995 order.

With regard to Accidents, the Final Report notes “the average annual incidence of fatal accidents in ship breaking industry is 2.0 per 1000 workers while the All India incidence of fatal accidents during the same period in mining industry, which is considered to be the most accident prone industries, is 0.34per 1000 workers.” This is based on data from 1995 to 2005.

31 August, 2006:Application for further directions in respect of SS Norway (Blue Lady) from the Supreme Court filed by Chairman, Central Polluion Control Board who is also a member of the Technical Experts Committee on Management of Hazardous Wastes relating to Ship breaking. The Report makes no mention of Priya Blue Shipping Ltd

It appears from the various letter of Priya Blue that after obtaining illegally the permission of beaching it wanted to dismantle the ship without even having any dismantling plan of its own independent of Hariyana Ship Demolitions Ltd.

26 September – As time passes, the fate of SS Norway becomes slimmer by the day, yet Bleu Ribband-Gulf Dessert LLC continues with their battle to purchase the ship against all odds. Having had to battle Star Cruises and the breakers, now her survival rests on the decision by the Indian court on December 4.

1 November – Prospective buyers of shipboard merchandise boarded Blue Lady last month and have placed orders for most of her fittings. None of the goods onboard can be removed until the Indian court gives the breakers the go ahead, should that happen.

8 November – Ship breaker Priya Blue have winched Blue Lady in a zig zag manner closer to the beach in contravention of the Court order of August 17.

29 November – It is now just days away for the Indian court to make its decision, and we hope for a positive outcome.

4 December, 2006: Supreme Court judge Justice Arijit Pasayat said, the Gujarat “Pollution   Control   Board, while   examining   the   dismantling   plan shall    find out if there is a scope for sending back the vessel in any manner after it has been permitted to be beached.” It granted an opportunity to the petitioner “of placing material in support of its stand (regarding the impermissibility of the entry of the ship) before the Pollution Control Board takes a decision. It said, “No action thereon can be taken without leave of this Court.”

26 December, 2006: Sanjay Parikh and Gopal Krishna gave a submission to the GPCB citing the court order of 14^th October, 2003-“At the international Level, India should participate in international meetings on ship breaking at the Level of the International Maritime Organization and the Basel Convention's Technical Working Group with a clear mandate for the decontamination of ships of their hazardous oil, gas and PCBs prior to exports to India for breaking. Participation should include from Central and State Level.” The Supreme Court had observed that ship-breaking operation should strictly adhere to precautionary principle. It referred to principles No. 4, 10, and 19 of the Rio Declaration and held that provisions of these Covenants including Basel Convention are part of Article 21 of the Constitution. Principle 19 of Rio Declaration talks about prior and timely notification of the relevant information regarding adverse trans-boundary movements to the state concerned. Prior information by the state of export is contained even in the Rio Declaration. Regarding prior decontamination, the MoEF in its affidavit to the Supreme Court dated 10^th February, 2006 had made the following position clear: “I submit that India has consistently taken a stand that ships prior to dismantling should be decontaminated to the extent possible. In the case of Clemenceau, the Government of France has, as per documents submitted, taken steps to decontaminate the ship of asbestos containing material to the extent possible without endangering the ability of the ship to float.”

After the order dated 14.10.2003 passed by the Supreme Court, there were two conferences at the International level i.e. COP-6 and COP-7 in COP-7 it was recognised that a ship can be a ship and waste at the same time and that the prior informed consent should be invoked with regard to the ship breaking. Two important aspects emerge from the above:

(1) Before a ship leaves the port of a foreign country [Exporting Country] for breaking after decontamination there should be complete information about the ownership, past history, total quantity of waste, total quantity of hazardous waste including the embedded one after decontamination, should be supplied to the importing country.

(2) The country of import, before giving clearance and before the ship leaves the port of export should satisfy itself as to whether there was prior decontamination and the quantity and nature of residual waste, which can be disposed of in an environmentally sound manner. Whether proper land-fill facility exists as per the existing guidelines and that safe and environmentally sound conditions exist for the workers to do the dismantling process.

19 February, 2007: Justice S.H. Kapadia said, “It is a Public Interest Litigation.  The main matter is listed for final hearing on 12th March, 2007. In that   matter   one   of   the   main   issues which arise for consideration is the norms to be laid down in the matter of ship   breaking. The   main   matter has   been   appearing before the Bench presided over by Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. In the circumstances office is directed to list this I.A.No.34 of 2006 after two weeks since it is contended on behalf of the applicant that the said matter is of some urgency. Reply to be filed by the petitioner within one week.” The order came because Additional Solicitor General of India argued on behalf of the private part Priya Blue Shipping Pvt Ltd

26 February, 2007: Next date of hearing fixed even before the expiry of one week period

Earlier Prof. Menon in a letter dated 14^th August 2006 to the Chief Justice of India has clearly stated that “any effort to dilute the Supreme Court orders of October 14, 2003 to try to remove the concept of prior decontamination would be a measure going against the interests of workers in the ship-breaking yards as also the violation of the Basel Convention. This will be a violation by both Malaysia and India who are signatories to the Convention.”

For the above mentioned reasons among others, the Blue Lady should be sent back, no dismantling can be allowed despite beaching. It is only after prior decontamination and following the procedure set out in the 2003 Supreme Court order that entry of Blue Lady can be considered.

Any other understanding/interpretation of the present factual situation will be disastrous, namely, that any ship having huge quantity of hazardous material will be allowed entry on humanitarian ground and will then be allowed to beach as it can not remain in the territorial waters for a long time and after beaching, a fait accompli will be pleaded i.e. breaking of the ship will be imminent. This procedure is unheard of and violates every norm, Rule of Law, International Conventions besides the directions given by Supreme Court in the year 2003. This procedure will be extremely dangerous to the environment and human health.

19 December, 2007: Whilst awaiting a new Court Order we have already seen from photographs taken that the breaker has gone ahead and has snipped off her bow, which means that breaking up has already commenced.

19 January, 2008: Further photographs have been sent to me, which proves that torches have been busy cutting up the SS Norway with parts of her top decks slowly disappearing. In addition the satellite dome atop her forward funnel has been removed as has the forward main mast.

6 February: Holes are now being cut in her starboard and port sides and she is slowly disappearing before our eyes. As some have written me, with the top decks gone, she is looking a little like the France of the old days.

12 May, 2008: Her demolition is now proceeding rapidly with her forward interior decks exposed to the waterline, her bridge and forward upper decks have all gone as has the forward funnel. Only the section directly below the aft funnel seems untouched, except for the holes cut into her hull. However, by the end of the year much of her will be gone.

May 22: An US federal judge on Wednesday May 21 ordered NCL (Norwegian Cruise Line) to pay a US$1 million fine after the company pleaded guilty to gross negligence in court five years after a horrific boiler explosion on the SS Norway, which killed eight crew members and seriously injured 10 others in the Port of Miami. In addition US District Judge Federico Moreno ordered NCL to pay US$13.75 million preliminary restitution to the eighteen victims and set a June 20 hearing to consider other related issues. The US attorney's office said that the Miami based cruise line admitted in the criminal plea agreement that it operated the vessel in a “Grossly negligent manner that endangered the lives, limbs and property of the persons on board.'”

Before the rebuilding of the SS France to become a cruise ship she was a sleek and graceful ship

Although her beauty continued to shine and was a much loved cruise ship

Author’s collection

NCL & NCLA are simply NOT worth cruising with!

Use the Back button on your browser or Close the Page to return to the previous page
or go to our INDEX

Who is the Author of ssMaritime?

Commenced in the passenger Shipping Industry in May 1960

ssMaritime.com & ssMaritime.net

Where the ships of the past make history & the 1914 built MV Doulos Story

Also visit my …

“Save The Classic Liners Campaign” & “Classic Ocean Voyages” pages

Photographs on ssmaritime and associate pages are by the author or from the author’s private collection. In addition there are some images that have been provided by Shipping Companies and private photographers or collectors. Credit is given to all contributors. However, there are some photographs provided to me without details regarding the photographer/owner concerned. I hereby invite if owners of these images would be so kind to make them-selves known to me (my email address may be found on www.ssmaritime.com only), in order that due credit may be given. I know what it is like, I have seen a multitude of my own photographs on other sites, yet these individuals either refuse to provide credit or remove them when asked, knowing full well that there is no legal comeback when it comes to the net. However, let us show these charlatans up and do the right thing at all times and give credit where credit is due!

This notice covers all pages, although, and I have done my best to ensure that all photographs are duly credited and that this notice is displaced on each page, that is, when a page is updated!

Free Counter