George Bush sending us a toxic fleet what do you think about

[©Amethyst]

But why send them to the uk at all?
Surely they can be dealt with in the USA! It would save a lot of money and worry!

[jjc]

It seems that although the metal from the ships can be sold as scrap, much of the chemical waste aboard will pretty much have to stay in Teesside in some form forever (or certainly for a long time).

[golach]

But why send them to the uk at all?
Surely they can be dealt with in the USA! It would save a lot of money and worry!

I think it is a case of N.I.M.B.Y. Amethyst Not in my back yard and seem to be to be a US Government attitude in general

Golach

[Margaret M.]

They haven't left yet and Isabel is heading right for them. The United States should be cleaning up their own mess - it's an absolute disgrace!

'Ghost fleet' ships not ready to leave
Coast Guard hasn't inspected vessels


By Kimball Payne
Daily Press

Published September 12, 2003

NEWPORT NEWS -- The company towing two James River "ghost fleet" ships to a scrapyard in the United Kingdom canceled Coast Guard inspections Thursday. The move means the former Navy vessels won't get the green light to leave their moorings until next week at the earliest.

The Caloosahatchee and the Canisteo could have started their 4,500-mile journey across the Atlantic as early as today if the Coast Guard had completed its review of the ships' strucptural integrity.

Officials with the Maritime Administration, which oversees the collection of nearly 100 vessels in the James River Reserve Fleet, said the towing schedule was not affected by a threat environmental groups raised this week to seek a federal court order blocking the transfer.

That's not the only legal complication involving the fleet that includes ships in decrepit condition and some that are merely mothballed in storage. A James City County lawyer notified federal officials this week that he too plans to sue the Maritime Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency over the ships. But his suit would seek to have the most toxic vessels in the river removed faster.

Loaded with oil, gas, asbestos, PCBs and other toxins, many of the ghost fleet ships anchored near Fort Eustis pose environmental hazards.

"We continue with our plans for the tow," said Robyn Boerst-ling, a spokesperson with the Maritime Administration in Washington. "As long as the safety and security requirements are in place."

The Maritime Administration did not know the specific reason for the holdup, and officials at Post-Service Remediation Partners - the New York-based company that is coordinating the deal with British scrap company, Able UK - were unavailable for comment.

The postponement comes, though, as Hurricane Isabel threatens to move up the Eastern Seaboard, a development that could pose hazards for the slow-moving dilapidated ships.

The Basel Action Network and the Sierra Club notified the EPA on Tuesday that they plan to seek a federal court order to block moving the obsolete ships to the U.K. for scrapping. While not the cause of the delay, the groups were happy to have extra time.

"It's good news for us," said Jim Puckett, director of the Seattle-based Basal Action Network. "It gives us time to get our ducks in a row and try and stop this."

The environmental activists said that the EPA illegally granted the waiver allowing the Maritime Administration to export the ships that are filled with toxic materials. In addition to the environmental dangers, Puckett said the tow to England would set a precedent and allow other ships to be sent to countries such as China that offer cheap labor and less stringent environmental regulations.

Joining the fray, maritime lawyer Morton Clark - who lives within sight of the fleet - sent out formal notices this week regarding his intent to sue the maritime agency and the EPA. The Kingsmill resident said he will file a citizen's suit in U.S. District Court in Norfolk in 90 days, based on the "imminent danger of substantial environmental damage" that the fleet poses.

In his legal notice, Clark said EPA regulations enacted in 1995 prohibiting the Maritime Administration from selling ships for scrap without first removing all toxic PCBs from the vessels have hampered efforts to dispose of the obsolete ships.

Clark - who said the lawsuit would be filed in his wife's name - criticized groups like the Sierra Club for opposing the transfer of the ships to England.

"All of us here on the river whether it's Newport News, Surry or James City County, should be concerned as hell about it," Clark said. "We need to move the ships away from here."

Boerstling said the Maritime Administration received the second lawsuit but declined to comment. But environmentalists acknowledged Clark's frustration.

"That doesn't surprise us," said Michael Town, director of the Sierra Club's Virginia chapter. "Our position is to get the ships off the river, we just don't want to send them out into the ocean."

Maritime agency officials stressed that the nature of the towing caused the delay and said that emergency generators and global-positioning systems for both ships were en route to Newport News to prepare the vessels for the trip to an Able UK scrap yard in Teesside, England.

"There is no set schedule and there's a lot of back and forth," Boerstling said. "It's in everybody's best interests to make sure this is done in the safest way possible."

The $17.8 million contract, which includes two Navy oil tankers that could be sold later for millions of dollars, calls for all 13 of the vessels to be removed by the end of October.

[golach]

From the BBC News today they are still coming through the FIRTH

Change to 'ghost fleet' dock plans
The company planning to import and scrap part of the US 'ghost fleet' to Hartlepool has changed its plans for housing the rusting hulks when they arrive.

Able UK has now decided against seeking planning permission for a dry dock at the site.

Instead the company says it will rely on an earlier planning permission granted in 1997 to allow it to build a rock-filled embankment, or bund.

Friends of the Earth says the scheme is less environmentally safe than the original plan for a dry dock.

But Able UK managing director Peter Stephenson said building the bund has been discussed with bodies including English Nature.

He said: "Our designers are currently working on an alternative design which may submitted to Hartlepool Boroough Council in the near future."

Mr Stephenson added: "The delivery of the ships and the contract period will not be afffected at all by this process."


Fuel fears

The 13-strong fleet of cargo and military vessels is being brought 4,000 miles from Virginia, to be scrapped at a Hartlepool dockyard.

The deal is expected to create 200 jobs at Able UK's Hartlepool yard.

The plan has already been criticised by environmental groups, who are worried about the possible risks from asbestos and fuel oil.

And Friends of the Earth has now called on Hartlepool Borough Council to ensure the Able proposals do not go ahead without a full environmental impact assessment being carried out.

Campaigns director Mike Childs said: "We also look to the British, Irish, French and Belgium coastguards to prevent these boats entering European waters until those assessments are complete."

A spokesman for Hartlepool Borough Council said: "We now have to consider a lot of representations and a lot of detailed submissions. We are assessing our position."

Strong winds

The departure of the first two controversial former US Navy ships bound for Hartlepool has been delayed by Hurricane Isabel - currently heading for America's East Coast.

The ships, part of the flotilla of 13 that will be scrapped in the North East, were due to leave on Thursday but will now not sail for at least a couple of days.

The 105mph winds will delay the sailing of the first two vessels for two days.

Environmentalists want the journey stopped, claiming the ships are rusting and could leak oil and dangerous chemicals.

But Able has dismissed the fears as "scaremongering".


Story from BBC NEWS:

[Kenn]

I have a question, looking at the state of those rusting hulks across The Atlantic, will they ever make the crossing? This is the hurricane season and we all know that as those storms abate and follow their normal track across The Atlantic the weather can be more than severe in The Northern Approaches.Are the governing powers in Canada, Greenland ,Iceland and The Irish Repuiblic not to mention the eastern seaboard of The United States prepared to see them founder in their waters with the resulting pollution?I would hope not.Whatever transpires..WE DO NOT want them here.

[Anonymous]

My questions would be on these lines:

1. Who really thinks that these ships will make it to their destination in 1 piece?

2. What kind of mess will be caused if these ships do not make it?

3. Where is the debris and chaos most likely to effect?

3. What countries in the world have a team ready to deal with just this sort of situation?

4. How many billions will it take to pay this team to do the clean up work?

To me this just sounds like another opportunity for the US Administration to cause a great big mess that the rest of the world will have to pay them to clean up. These ships must be in some state that even the "experts" are not allowed to touch them in their own back yard in case of environmental disater. How nice that they find some desperate ship yard that will take on any work that will guarantee a few jobs.

If this really was GB PLC and Tony was the sales rep, he'd have been fired a long time ago for not reaching his targets. Reps that dont bring copious amounts of work to their company get the heave. It must be because he's on loan from the Bush Administration thet he gets to keep his job. Or, is Tony really in charge of MI6 and he's just going to have "bumped off", anyone who speaks against him and his erm decisions.

Was our UK rep the only one to applaud GWB's show at the recent UN gathering?

We luv you long time, only 50 million billion dollah

[Margaret M.]

Well, it looks like they will be coming through the Pentland Firth. Sadly, the United States seldom cleans up its own mess - they just hand it off to someone else. It's not like the shipyards in the U.S. could not use the work - the economy is in bad shape, constant layoffs, etc., so why they choose to pay millions to another country and risk an enviromental disaster is beyond my understanding.

From the Guardian, Sept 29
>>Even a superficial inspection reveals that they are not in a fit state to enter UK waters. The United States has the capacity, skills and moral obligation to deal with these ships," he said.<<

[Anonymous]

A up these ear ship have hole in em, they are being towed, we will be getting prefried fish in the chippy, i no put george blair and tony bush on one and scrap them as well

[Teessider]

Well, it looks like they will be coming through the Pentland Firth.

No, they're saying they'll use the English Channel now. Crazy, either way.

From the Guardian, Sept 29
>>.......The United States has the capacity, skills and moral obligation to deal with these ships," he said.<<

He might think that. I do myself. But the UK's Health and Safety Executive, which played a vital part by lifting the regulations that forbid the import of asbestos into the UK, thinks otherwise. They say that "In discussions with the US Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs we were told that if the ships were not recycled in the UK they would then consider exporting to other countries, where the recycling would be likely to be carried out with less regard for both environment and the health and safety of workers. There were also assertions by them that there was insufficient capacity available in the US."

I'm convinced that for the US, the deal will set a precedent for resuming ship exports - and the next batch will go to Asia, no matter what the scrapping conditions.

For the shipyard, there's a lot riding on this. They don't actually have the dry dock that the contract requires - but the contract will lever in loads European and UK govt. grants to help pay for new dock gates to seal the basin. The owner's personal wealth will increase by the same amount!

For the UK government, this will provide another facility to scrap redundant Royal Navy ships. We've asked Able UK if they'd consider scrapping nuclear subs. They didn't say yes and they didn't say no.

For the local people in Hartlepool, it's a sell-out by the politicians, the business, and the 'development at all costs' quangos .

I'm sure it couldn't happen in Scotland !

[rich]

What is the position of the elected representatives of Caithness and Orkney on this subject?

[jjc]

Good point, Rich. Bill, was this discussed/debated at all at any council meetings?

Two of them (WWII Fleet Oilers) left yesterday, by the way. They are expected to take 21 days to cross the Atlantic.

In the US (according to 'Pilot Online'), Government lawyers have admitted that 'no formal environmental impact studies had been done of the potential for damage from a serious accident or sinking of the ships' - so that's alright then?!?!

And, if you needed any further proof that this is nothing more than the US dumping their rubbish on somebody else's doorstep, U.S. Representative Jo Ann Davis is quoted as saying, "I frankly don't care if the ships are scrapped internationally or domestically. We just want them out of our back yard on the James River." !!!!

I know that it might seem like the crisis has been averted now that the route is set through the English Channel, but realistically we don’t live on a very big island and this is a dangerous precedent our ever-eager-to-please government have set… it won’t be long before more are on their way (in fact, they are due to send the next two later in the week).

[©Amethyst]

I don't actually think anything we could do could have stopped the American Government sending them to us.

Just a suggestion, but...
Maybe we should concentrate more on how to cope with the damage (once it is done... and if any is done) than fretting over what might happen.

Aye?

[frank ward]

There's a report on rumblings in Hartlepool on the the toxic fleet at:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/1874/IX.HTM

[Issy2]

Have they started moving them yet ?
I have not seen anything on the T.V. or in the papers about this.
I don't understand the logic behind moving them so far away when they pose such a threat where they are.
Couldn't they be transported to the middle of the desert and buried ?
Why on earth would the UK agree to such a daft idea ?

[jjc]

I was in the Lake District over the weekend and the local BBC news there had a report on these ships. Yes, they have left and more are planned.

[golach]

Just heard on the News today they are not going to be allowed to land at Hartlepool

[jjc]

Yeah, apparently the authorisation from the Environment Agency was on the assumption that Able had all the other relevant permission required – and they don’t. The Environment Agency have said that, if all the permissions and plans are put in place in the future there is no reason why the ships should not come to Able.

With the first four ships just two weeks away, I wonder what will happen now. Can they just float aimlessly around the Atlantic whilst Able get the required documents together, or will they need to find save harbour somewhere?

[MadPict]

They may still be allowed to dock here to await the required paperwork to be sorted out. But EA has said they shouldn't set sail until this is sorted, but it sounds like they have...


MadPict

[golach]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/3240121.stm

Still bad news but look at the route
Golach