567 Tonnes Of Perlite Powder Found At Alang Ship-Breaking Yard, RTI Raises Questions Over GPCB Action

A Right to Information (RTI) application has raised questions over environmental compliance at Gujarat’s Alang ship-breaking yard after an inspection report reportedly found 567 metric tonnes of perlite powder linked to a vessel at Plot No. 88 in Sosiya, Bhavnagar district.

The findings have prompted allegations of improper waste handling and inadequate regulatory oversight against the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB). Social activist Prafull Mehta, who sought the information, has questioned what happened to the material and whether authorities adequately investigated its disposal.

Vessel Reportedly Turned Away By Bangladesh

According to the information shared by Mehta, a vessel identified in the account as ‘Plang LNG’ or ‘Korean Flag LNG Yog’ arrived at Alang after reportedly being denied entry at a ship-breaking facility in Bangladesh over concerns about the powder it carried.

The vessel was brought to Plot No. 88, operated by M/s Atam Manohar Ship Breakers. An inspection report obtained through the RTI process reportedly recorded 567 metric tonnes of perlite powder, along with glass wool and oily waste.

Mehta said the material was found scattered along the coastline and in the surrounding water over a stretch of around three kilometres. The quantity was estimated to be equivalent to approximately 28 truckloads.

The allegations raise questions about how the waste was handled, where it was deposited and whether adequate checks were carried out before the vessel was allowed to undergo dismantling.

GPCB Issues Notice, Waste Disposal Remains A Question

According to the account provided by the activist, the GPCB issued a notice under Section 33(A) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act over alleged violations of standard operating procedures. The board also reportedly issued a closure notice to Plot No. 88.

However, Mehta and environmental activists have questioned whether the regulatory action established the precise locations where the material was allegedly dumped and identified those responsible.

They have also sought clarity on the final destination of the reported 567 tonnes of perlite powder. The information provided does not establish whether the entire quantity was recovered, removed or disposed of through an authorised process.

The allegations have not been independently verified, and the available account does not include a detailed response from the GPCB or the ship-breaking company addressing the claims.

What Is Perlite Powder And Why Can It Be Harmful?

Perlite is a mineral material commonly used in insulation. Expanded perlite can serve as an insulating material in industrial applications, including cryogenic systems designed to maintain extremely low temperatures in liquefied natural gas (LNG) vessels.

Perlite is not inherently a chemical poison. However, airborne dust can irritate the eyes, throat and respiratory tract. Heavy or prolonged exposure to dust may aggravate breathing problems, particularly among workers handling the material without adequate protection.

Eye contact can cause redness and irritation, while dust particles may scratch the surface of the eye. The actual health risks depend on the material’s composition, particle size, exposure levels and the presence of other contaminants.

The reported presence of glass wool and oily waste adds to concerns about the handling of the material. Testing would be needed to establish the composition of the waste and assess the risks posed by its alleged release into the environment.

RTI Activist Questions Regulatory Oversight

Mehta said he initially urged GPCB officials to exercise caution while preparing the inspection report after learning that the vessel had reportedly been refused entry in Bangladesh. He subsequently filed an RTI application seeking details of the inspection and the action taken.

After receiving what he described as vague responses, he pursued the matter further. The information he obtained reportedly disclosed the quantity of perlite recorded during the inspection.

Environmental activists have questioned how such a large quantity of material could allegedly be dispersed without being detected or properly contained by the authorities responsible for monitoring the ship-breaking operation.

They argue that issuing notices and ordering a unit to close would not, by themselves, resolve the environmental concerns. They want a clear account of the waste’s disposal, an investigation into any contamination and accountability for any regulatory lapses established.

The key unanswered questions concern the handling of the reported 567 tonnes of perlite powder, the extent of any environmental damage and the steps taken by the GPCB to verify compliance with its directions.