Greenwire March 18, 2004
Toxics: Enviro Concerns Delay Disposal Of Hundreds Of U.S. Ships
By Hye Jeong
The Transportation Department faces a 2006 deadline to dispose of 146 decommissioned ships that sit idle in Navy ports and other facilities around the country. But as the deadline draws near, DOT's Maritime Administration remains mired down in disputes over the ships' toxic wastes -- including PCBs, asbestos and fuel oil -- that could pose environmental harm if not properly handled.
Since last fall, a "ghost fleet" of about 70 ships moored in Norfolk, Va., has been the subject of a tug-of-war between citizens who want the ships removed from the James River, where they currently sit, and those who want greater assurances from MARAD that the toxic materials will be handled properly by scrap yards and metal recyclers at home and abroad.
The issue gained international notoriety last year after MARAD towed four of the 13 "ghost fleet" ships across the Atlantic Ocean to be scrapped in an English shipyard only to have a British judge strike down the license issued by England's Environment Agency for the disposal of the 13 ships in the port of Teesside (Greenwire, Dec. 16, 2003). A week later the same judge, British High Court Judge Jeremy Sullivan, ruled that planning permission used by the ship-breaking firm, Able UK, was "fatally flawed" and the company would have to apply for a new permit.
While the four U.S. ships from the James River Reserve Fleet remain docked in Teesside, environmentalists have sued MARAD over the ship dismantling program and won a temporary injunction keeping the remaining nine Navy vessels from leaving the James River. The Sierra Club and Basel Action Network won the order after arguing that MARAD violated the Toxic Substances Control Act, which bans the export of material containing PCBs.
A lawyer for Earthjustice, which represents Sierra Club and Basel Action Network in the lawsuit, said the groups are committed to following the legal process to the end. "We're driven by our clients," said attorney Marcelo Mollo. "Regulatory agencies in general would like to dump PCBs in foreign countries. In our clients' view, that's simply immoral. We're committed to making MARAD comply with the public [will]."
Neither MARAD officials nor Justice Department attorneys would elaborate on the lawsuit, citing policy against commenting on active litigation. The defendants are scheduled to file a motion for preliminary injunction in May, and a court hearing is scheduled for July 29 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
MARAD insists it is simply following congressional orders to award scrapping contracts to meet the disposal deadline. It denies allegations from environmentalists that the agency has violated any U.S. law or that the transport of ships for overseas recycling poses environmental harm. The agency awards its contracts to both foreign and domestic firms based on fair bids, MARAD said.
According to Basel Action Network, the 13 most deteriorated ships contain an estimated 698 tons of PCBs, 1,402 tons of asbestos and more than 3,300 tons of fuel oil.
Under the 1994 National Maritime Heritage Act, MARAD must award bid contracts to a recycler who can safely separate such toxic materials from useful scrap metal. Prior to 1994, the agency was allowed to sell such ships to the highest bidder, regardless of a firm's environmental practices.
Under current U.S. standards, shipbreaking crews must follow guidelines when they separate by hand the toxic chemicals from scrap metal and then cut the metal with torches. But environmentalists say such standards do not necessarily apply overseas, where firms operate under less stringent labor, health and safety laws.
Despite the continued legal challenges, MARAD officials say they remain optimistic about meeting a Sept. 30, 2006, deadline imposed by Congress to remove the ships from the U.S. government's books. "That is still our goal," agency spokeswoman Susan Clark said in a recent interview.
Most recently, the agency issued a 122-page environmental assessment (EA) of the disposal program and will solicit public comments on it through March 29. Basel Action Network responded with a 64-page criticism of the EA, noting that the document does not fully address potential environmental hazards associated with ship-breaking. They also called on MARAD to offer various alternative scenarios for dealing with the ships, as required under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Other experts remain skeptical about MARAD's ability to meet that deadline, and advised that the agency develop contingency plans to move the ships from their current moorings. "These ships have been slated to be scrapped for a long time," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a nonpartisan policy research group in Alexandria, Va. "Eventually, a hurricane is going to come along and wash them out to sea. Eventually, they are going to pose a hazard."
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.), a veteran of World War II and the Korean War who also served as Navy secretary under President Nixon, has said a hurricane or tropical storm coming off the Atlantic Ocean could cause "a real environmental disaster" in the James River watershed.
Patti Jackson, executive director of the James River Association, said she is concerned about the James River "ghost fleet" for more practical reasons, having witnessed the ships' deteriorating condition over the years, including a 1,000-gallon oil leak from one of the ships in 2000. Jackson said the ships contain about 8 million gallons of oil, yet they float in an estuary full of fish and shellfish.
"Several of them are in extremely bad conditions," Jackson said. "They're rusting and have holes. That's why we are concerned. Crews go out and plug leaks and conduct maintenance on the vessels. There's an ongoing cost to that, but also an ongoing threat from the vessels."
Nevertheless, Jackson and others have reason to be wary of the government's resolve to remove the ships. Congress has twice postponed the deadline for MARAD to act. The agency was originally under order to deal with the "ghost fleet" by the end of fiscal year 1999. The deadline was pushed back to 2001, then again to 2006.
According to estimates from GlobalSecurity, MARAD spends an average of $19,000 annually per ship to keep vessels afloat and free of leaks. Maintenance sometimes requires controlling humidity inside the ships' hulls to slow corrosion or mold and mildew growth. Ships in the worst condition can cost up to $800,000 annually, including fees for dry docking, according to GlobalSecurity. MARAD once estimated it could avoid dry-docking fees if it disposed an average of 18 ships annually.
The 2003 Defense authorization bill, P.L. 107-314, signed by President Bush in 2002, allowed MARAD and U.S. EPA to launch a pilot program to explore "the feasibility and advisability of various alternatives for exporting obsolete vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet." And in last year's Defense appropriations bill, P.L. 107-248 Congress allocated $20 million for scrapping 100 ships from the James River Reserve Fleet.
MARAD has identified 17 ships with a high environmental and economic risk factors. Cost estimates for complete scrapping run from $1.5 million to $2 million per vessel, with oil draining running $1 million per ship, Jackson said. She said it is important that the money stays with the James River ships because more vessels are stationed there than at any other fleet site. The ships also have more severe environmental hazards, she said (Greenwire, Dec. 18, 2002).
As for the four U.S. ships awaiting action in England, Able UK has been reapplying for permits and preparing an environmental impact statement, said Phil Michaels, Friends of the Earth solicitor. Some have speculated that the Environment Agency could render a decision on the future of the four ships by this summer.
"It's been a relatively quiet time," Michaels said. "I'm sure it won't be forever."
© Copyright 2004, Environment and Energy Publishing, LLC
