Update: Maritime Administration dumps ship-sinking practice

In what environmentalists call "a major win," the U.S. Maritime Administration has reversed course and will look to recycle old vessels before making artificial reefs out of them.

The new policy is to not sink ships built before 1985, when ships were often built using toxic substances, in the ocean.

The U.S. Maritime Administration is a division of the Department of Transportation and has its own fleet of noncombatant governmental ships. The policy would not apply to other governmental departments, such as the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard, unless the Maritime Administration owned one of their former vessels.

Ships are often used by the government to create artificial reefs in oceans.

The Basel Action Network said since 1972, approximately 45 ships have been disposed at sea by the U.S. Maritime Administration. Those vessels often carried PCBs and other potentially toxic substances. In addition, the scrap metal is likely worth millions of dollars. There are 38 ships in the Maritime Administration's fleet designated for disposal. Of the 125 vessels owned by the agency, only one was built after 1985.

"They are basically saying ship recycling in the U.S. will be their predominate means of disposal," said Colby Self, director of BAN's green ship recycling program. "Just five or six years ago, they said ship recycling was too expensive in the U.S. They were looking for alternatives [to recycling] and artificial reefing was one of them. They are coming back to their senses and choosing recycling over ocean dumping."

Officials with the U.S. Maritime Administration did not return repeated calls for comment on the policy change.

The change might have more to do with economics than wanting to do right by the environment, Self said.

"I think the last five or so vessels the Navy has recycled, they did it at a cost of [a total of] 2 cents to the government," he said. "In past years, that definitely wasn't the case. They are seeing there is an economic benefit to recycling as opposed to sinking, which costs millions of dollars."

Self said it's important that a business case can be made for recycling, as that can only lead to good things.

"I think the economics is a stronger influence than the environment [in this case],"

he said. "But hey, when positive for the economy and positive for the environment work together, as long as the outcome is good, we're in full support."

BAN has been pressuring the U.S. Navy to adopt a similar policy, calling for an end to its sinking exercises. The Navy has sunk 117 ships since 1999, including three near Hawaii in July. BAN has sued the U.S. EPA for allowing the program to continue. That case remains in federal court.

The Navy does artificial reefing and also sinks ships as part of target practice to simulate war situations. The artificial reefing program has slowed in recent years after twice the amount of PCBs expected from the U.S.S. Oriskany aircraft carrier was found around the artificial reef created off of Florida's coast.

"We've been hard on this administration for continuing these dumping policies," Self said. "We're really pleased to a see positive change … it's definitely a step in the right direction and we commend them for that."

Source: By Jeremy Carroll. 1 October 2012

http://www.wasterecyclingnews.com/article/20121001/NEWS08/121009999/update-maritime-administration-dumps-ship-sinking-practice

Anchorage Of Ex Exxon Valdez Off Gujarat Coast Is Contempt Of Court:

July 1, 2012, New Delhi-Contrary to the order dated May 3, 2012, Supreme Court wherein had asked Union of India, Ministry of Shipping and Ministry of Environment & Forests “to inform this Court as to the steps being taken to prevent the ship berthing in any of the ports in India, without following the conditions indicated in the Basel Convention,” if anchorage is allowed it will be in contempt of court. The legal meaning of berthing is anchoring. The infamous oil tanker that spilled crude oil off the Alaskan coast 23 years ago, anchored a little past 7 am on Saturday, about six nautical miles off the Bhavnagar coast, Gujarat state, India.

At page no. 17 and 18 of the attached application of the Honkong based Best Oasis company, the letter of the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) addressed to the Port Officer, Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) reveals that there has not been compliance with the court order seeking compliance with UN’s Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal of which India is a party.

At page 18 of the application wherein GPCB’s letter is annexed. The letter specifically refers to ‘agency’s letter seeking Anchoring permission’ responding to the same, GPCB reproduced Hon’ble Court’s order of May 3, 2012 ad verbatim. The relevant part of attached 9 page order refers to the application filed by Gopal Krishna of ToxicsWatch Alliance at page no. 8 and 9. It reads: “Mr. Sanjay Parikh also submitted that a separate interlocutory application has been filed, which is yet to be numbered, in which it has been indicated that a foreign ship, which is alleged to be contaminated, has entered into Indian Waters, though, it has not yet been allowed to berth in any of the ports, without taking proper steps for decontamination in the port of export. A copy has been provided to Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Union of India and Mr. T.S. Doabia, learned senior counsel, who submits that he is appearing on behalf of the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India. Both, Mr. Bhan and Mr. Doabia, are requested to take instructions on the statements made in the interlocutory application and to inform this Court as to the steps being taken to prevent the ship berthing in any of the ports in India, without following the conditions indicated in the Basel Convention. The respondents in the interlocutory application will be entitled to file their respective counter affidavits to the same, within six weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. Let this interlocutory application, as well as the other connected interlocutory applications, be listed on 13th August, 2012, also.”

The agency which applied for the anchoring permission is named as SHREEJI SHIPPING AGENCY. It is not revealed as to what is the relationship between this agency and Mumbai based Oswald Cardozo of Hongkong based Best Oasis Company, a subsidiary of Gujarat based Priya Blue Company.

The letter of GPCB dated May 8, 2012 reveals that the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs has also taken cognizance of these violations. It refers to starred questions raised in Rajya Sabha about the vessel as well. it is admitted that ‘This office has also referred the matter to seek legal opinion, accordingly it would not be appropriate to grant any permission to the vessel “MV Oriental N” having one of the old name “Exxon Valdez” till further order is issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.’ The question is what has changed since May 3, 2012 till date to necessitate GPCB to revisit its denial of ‘to grant any permission to the vessel” in question. The influence of invisible players must be probed.

It is noteworthy that the end-of life vessel is a hazardous waste as per the Convention. The end-of-life US ships are laden with asbestos, PCBs and heavy metals which are being dumped in India in pursuance of USA’s Ship Disposal Policy. It is not for US Maritime Administration (US MARAD) and US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to disclose the original inventory of hazardous and radioactive materials on board its vessel, Exxon Valdez. The Central Pollution Control Board, Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) and Gujarat Maritime Board is supposed to verify the veracity of their inventory after that. It is matter of court’s record that GPCB does not have the facility to test PCBs. How can they visually inspect PCBs? It has not been disclosed so far whether it has the expertise to inspect lung cancer causing asbestos on the ship.

The inspection of the ship by moving it in Indian waters in Bhavnagar reportedly undertaken by the GPCB and GMB is has been done without court’s order as per Prayer No. 1 of the application of Mumbai based Oswald Cardozo on behalf of Hongkong based Best Oasis Company seeking inspection and anchorage. This is a manifest case of contempt of court’s order. The application was filed on May 9, 2012. Mr Oswald Cardozo must be asked to reveal his relationship with the company and the inventory of this hazardous ship. Who is hiding behind the corporate veil to escape decontamination cost?

Supreme Court’s original judgment of October 14, 2003 and September 6, 2007 reads: “13. A complete inventory of hazardous waste on board of ship should be made mandatory for the ship owner.” The core question is has the ship owner of the ship disclosed the inventory of hazardous waste on board of ship.

GPCB appears to be misleading when it says that there no hazardous materials like asbestos on board the ship. The fact is that it is only since January 1, 2011 that International Maritime Organization (IMO) has imposed total ban on asbestos. All ships prior to this date are likely to have asbestos and thus the end-of-life vessels like 1986 built Exxon Valdez (IMO No. 8414520) remain a major concern.

Supreme Court Monitoring Committee (SCMC) on Hazardous Wastes has rightly asked, “If India accepts the ship, then India will be seen as abetting a violation of the Basel Convention… Why should we sacrifice our precious soil to bury some other country's (hazardous) junk?” 

Government of USA is repeatedly trying to evade its responsibility regarding its end-of-life vessels. That’s why it did not ratify Basel Convention. USA’s standards for handling asbestos are amongst the highest in the world. But instead of investing in safe removal and disposal of the asbestos on Exxon Valdez, they are trying to dupe the Indian Government, and dump their toxic wastes onto the most vulnerable workforce in the world. This is absolutely reprehensible and unbecoming of a supposedly civilized nation.

ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) demands that the current and past ownership documents of the vessel must be examined. Industrialized countries should not be allowed to dump their junk into the developing world for the sake of perverted economic logic.

The eagerness to profit from one of the world's dirtiest industries, the dismantling of toxic ships by migrant and casual workers from Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Bihar and Odisha at Alang beach is fraught with disastrous environmental and occupational health consequences.

The fact is that September 2007 order of the Supreme Court has reproduced ad verbatim the court's landmark judgment of October 14, 2003. The relevant part of the order in the WRIT PETITION NO. 657 OF 1995 case which needs to be read before arriving at the legality or illegality of the anchorage of the toxic US vessel, Exxon Valdez (now called Oriental MV).

The order reads: “4. Disposal of waste material, viz. Oil, cotton, dead cargo of inorganic material like hydrated/solidified elements, thermocol pieces, glass wool, rubber, broken tiles, etc. should be done in a proper manner, utilizing technologies that meet the criteria of an effective destruction efficiently of 99.9 per cent, with no generation of persistent organic pollutants, and complete containment of all gaseous, liquid and solid residues for analysis and, if needed, reprocessing. Such disposed of material should be kept at a specified placed earmarked for this purpose. Special care must be taken in the handling of asbestos wastes, and total quantities of such waste should be made known to the concerned authorities. The Gujarat Pollution Control Board should authorize appropriates final disposal of asbestos waste.”

TWA demands that GPCB should disclose its disposal site for asbestos waste of this ship. TWA has sought compliance with the above mentioned order besides the recommendations of the Hon'ble court's Inter-Ministerial Committee on Shipbreaking. On May 3, 2012, the court asked the Union Government to file an affidavit as to whether the ship in question has complied with the Basel Convention. More than a month has passed but compliance affidavit has not been filed.

In such a situation, there is a compelling logic for this dead hazardous ship to be sent away from the Indian waters. It is trying to repeat the story of another dubious dead US ship Platinum II (ex SS Independence, MV Oceanic) to set a bad a precedent to ensure that it paves the way for hundreds of dead toxic US ships to be dumped in Indian waters.

A section of media appears to be been misled into reporting that the June 25, 2012 order of the court has cleared the end-of-life vessel Exxon Valdez (currently named MV Oriental N). The attached order reveals that no relief has been given as per the prayers in the application of Best Oasis company, subsidiary of Priya Blue Company. The application of the company is also attached.

According to IMO, “In March 1989, the Exxon Valdez, loaded with 1,264,155 barrels of crude oil, ran aground in the northeastern portion of Prince William Sound, spilling about one-fifth of its cargo. It was the largest crude spill, to date, in US waters and - probably the one which gained the biggest media coverage to date. The U.S. public demanded action - and duly got it. The United States introduced its Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), making it mandatory for all tankers calling at U.S. ports to have double hulls.”

From 1986 to 1990 it was owned by Exxon Shipping Company , a division of Exxon Corporation. In early 1993, it was transferred to another subsidiary company, Sear River Maritime Inc. Till 2005 it was under US flag. From 2005 it was under the flag of Marshall Islands. It was owned by Hong Kong Bloom Shipping Ltd, a unit of China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO), owner of the second largest shipping fleet in the world from August 2008 to 2011. This company renamed it as Oriental Nicety in 2011.

Notably both Exxon Corporation and COSCO are part of the United Nations Global Compact that commits business enterprises to uphold fundamental human rights, labour and environment protection laws. This move by Exxon and COSCO to sell the former Exxon Valdez for dismantling of the vessel on Alang beach exposes the hollowness of the UN Compact.

In March 2012, this US Vessel was purchased by a US based company Global Marketing Systems (GMS), one of the leading buyers of dead ships with offices in Shanghai and UAE. This company was indicted by the USEPA in the Platinum II case. The vessel was sold to a ship breaker company in Singapore on March 27, 2012. The name of this ship breaker company has not been disclosed.

It is claimed that the ship is now owned by Hongkong based Best Oasis company, a subsidiary of Priya Blue company. This company has renamed the vessel as MV Oriental N. The veracity of such ownership claims can only be done if the ownership documents are submitted to the court. The sale of this vessel to Best Oasis was announced by Maryland GMS.

After being the flag of USA and Marshall Islands, it took under Panama flag. As per the last information, this vessel is under Sierra Leone flag. Best Oasis company was set up in Hong Kong in 2010 for the “sole purpose of cash buying of vessels for recycling at Alang, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and China,” as per company’s website.

In November of 2010 this vessel had collided with the Aali, a Malta-flagged cargo ship, in the South China Sea. This vessel was towed to Longyan Port in the Chinese province of Shandong.

Earlier, it was planned that the vessel will be dismantled at Dalian in China. It has come to light that the vessel has illegally moved to Bhavnagar, Gujarat as of July 1, 2012. The last known port of this vessel was Mumbai. This end-of-life vessel of Length x Breadth: 300 m X 50 m has a dead weight of 213855 ton. The next hearing of application seeking compliance with Basel Convention and Supreme Court’s order is scheduled for July 9, 2012.

At present shipbreaking activity is regulated by the directives of the Supreme Court of India in their ruling in W.P. (Civil) No. 657 of 1995 vide Order dated October 14, 2003 and September 6, 2007. As per the court order a Ship Breaking/Recycling Code Should been formulated by the Inter Ministerial Committee on Shipbreaking constituted by the court under Union Ministry of Steel, the Focal Point for shipbreaking activity taking into account the directions contained in the Supreme Court Order, recommendations of Technical Experts Committee and High Powered Committee but several years have passed without compliance with the court order.

The non-cooperation of the Union Environment & Forests Ministry with the SCMC is one of the key reasons for the sorry state of affairs in the hazardous shipbreaking industrial operations.

For Details:

Gopal Krishna, Toxics Watch Alliance (TWA)

Mb: 08002263335, 09818089660,

E-mail:krishna1715@gmail.com,

Phone: +91-11-26517814,

Fax: +91-11-26517814

Web: toxicswatch.blogspot.com, banasbestosindia.blogspot.com

Source: By Toxics Watch Alliance. 1 July 2012

http://www.countercurrents.org/twa010712.htm

Mare Island firm to clean up ships, but loses latest bids to recycle them:

These days, Mare Island has ships coming and going and, sometimes, staying.

As Allied Defense Recycling continues to bid unsuccessfully on contracts to recycle worn out Suisun Bay Reserve "mothball" Fleet ships, Vallejo officials are seeking ways to work around an unwelcome 70-year-old vessel.

This week the U.S. Maritime Administration, the reserve fleet's administrator, awarded four contracts to break up mothballed ships moored off Benicia's shores.

The most recent round of bids resulted in the sales of the ships to the highest bidders, who will in turn sell off the scrap metal for profit. With many of the earlier recycling contracts, the government paid companies to dismantle the vessels due to the extensive chemical cleanup required.

The Tulare and Pigeon were awarded to International Shipbreaking Ltd. for about $1.1 million and $383,000 respectively, the Pyro to Southern Recycling LLC for nearly $1.6 million and the Mispillion to Esco Marine for more than $1.8 million, according to federal contracts.

Mare Island shipyard Allied Defense Recycling's bids were not the highest, but the company did secure four contracts to clean the vessels before they're towed out of state. The recent awards mark the third major round of ship recycling bids that Allied Defense Recycling has not secured in the past 13 months.

"We're continuously increasing our bids, however, the competition is doing the same thing," said Jay Anast, company business operations/managing director. "We're close enough to continue to be hopeful."

Anast declined to reveal how close his company came to matching its competitors.

Allied Defense Recycling will be paid a total of a little more than $1.7 million to scrub the hulls of the four vessels of loose paint and marine growth before the ships depart for final dismantling elsewhere. The first ship will arrive for cleaning mid-December, with the last scheduled to leave in February, Anast said.

The company, in other news, also began using the relatively new Mare Island Railroad service to cart away ships' ballast material off-site, he said. The material is used to control the ship's floating levels.

"We hope to utilize it for other purposes in the future," Anast said.

Elsewhere on Mare Island's shoreline, the extended tenure of the SS Pacific Star -- the ex-Artship -- will mean the city must move to win a major state grant. The ship's owner is the subject of a lawsuit resulting in the recent auctioning off of the ship for $1 to ship recycler Esco Marine. The sale, however, was blocked by a U.S. district judge in Sacramento this week after the ship's owner, International Maritime Security Alliance, made an 11th-hour bankruptcy filing.

During the protracted legal battle, Vallejo is faced with a narrowing period to begin building a new ferry maintenance facility -- at the same location as the Pacific Star. A chunk of the project's funding -- more than $4 million -- comes from a state grant due to expire at the end of the year.

Vallejo Public Works Director David Kleinschmidt said that the city is seeking a six-month extension on the grant from the California Transportation Commission.

The ship's removal "definitely continues to complicate our ability" to build the facility, Kleinschmidt said.

In the meantime, the city has received contractor bids on the projects this week, which will be assessed and ultimately brought before the Vallejo City Council for approval, Kleinschmidt said.

Source: Time Herald. By Jessica A. York (jyork@timesheraldonline.com). 03 December 2011

http://www.timesheraldonline.com/ci_19462690

BP’s Scheme to Dump Toxic Ship on South Asian Scrapping Beach Under Scrutiny by US Officials

BP Complicit In Plan To Dump Toxic Ship - BAN

October 28, 2010

According to the toxic watchdog organization Basel Action Network (BAN), a U.S. flagged oil tanker named "Prince William Sound”, that is part owned by BP (NYSE: BP) is about to be sold for scrapping on the notorious shipbreaking beaches in South Asia.

The ship, built in 1975 and whose namesake and owner are all too familiar reminders of recent environmental disasters. The ship is likely to contain toxic wastes such as asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other hazardous substances, and as such, BAN said it poses a threat to workers and the environment should it be exported to a developing country.

The vessel is reportedly moored now in a BP shipping depot in Malaysia, and its transfer is imminent. If the U.S. government fails to quickly intervene, the ship could be run up on the beaches of India, Bangladesh or Pakistan within days, where impoverished laborers break down ships by hand, subjecting them to explosions, accidents and occupational disease from exposure to toxic substances. This “beaching” method of scrapping ships is also devastating to local environments due to pollution and mangrove forest destruction undertaken to make room for the ships.

According to officials at the United States Maritime Administration (MARAD), the sale must first be approved by them based in part by a determination by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that the export will not violate the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) or other environmental laws. They have been notified by the ship’s owners (it is 25% owned by BP) of their intent to sell the vessel for scrap to a cash-buyer. BAN said these middleman-buyers allow companies like BP to both sidestep controversy and avoid direct sales to Asian shipbreaking yards and also make a large profit by avoiding responsible and more expensive ship recycling in the U.S. or another developed country.

“BP is proving once again a callous disregard for people and the environment,” said BAN’s Green Ship Recycling Campaign Director, Colby Self. “The EPA and MARAD must step in now and prevent what could be another BP-sponsored environmental disaster.”

Unlike BP, Chevron (NYSE: CVX) opted this year to recycle two of its tankers in Brownsville, Texas, in accordance with strict U.S. environmental and labor protection laws. Chevron’s environmentally responsible ship disposal decisions in 2010 generated U.S. green jobs at a time when U.S. jobs are much needed.

Due to the year of construction, the “Prince” likely contains PCBs, asbestos of other hazardous materials within its construction. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), in force since 1979, prohibits the export of PCB contaminated material for disposal purposes. However, the U.S. EPA has long struggled to enforce TSCA against shipping industry violators, particularly when vessels operate outside U.S. waters and beyond EPA jurisdiction.

MARAD is required by law to authorize the foreign scrapping and reflagging to foreign registry of all U.S. flagged vessels; but in past years, BAN’s protests have revealed that MARAD’s review neglected to consider the potential violation of laws that were enforceable by agencies outside MARAD’s jurisdiction. As a result, many U.S. vessels were reflagged and sold or scrapped abroad in violation of TSCA, BAN said. Now, MARAD and EPA have established a new process of review in which MARAD seeks EPA judgment to ensure compliance with TSCA prior to any reflagging or foreign scrapping authorization.

“The new Maritime Administration should be applauded for promising to more carefully monitor ship sales to prevent violations of U.S. environmental laws,” said Mr. Self. “But this is the test case. It’s time to take a stand and uphold environmental and labor protection laws for everyone everywhere. We urge MARAD and EPA to halt this sale as a matter of urgency.”

BAN is the world's only organization focused on confronting the global environmental injustice and economic inefficiency of toxic trade (toxic wastes, products and technologies) and its devastating impacts. Working at the nexus of human rights and environment, we confront the issues of environmental justice at a macro level, preventing disproportionate and unsustainable dumping of the world's toxic waste and pollution on our global village's poorest residents. At the same time we actively promote the sustainable and just solutions to our consumption and waste crises -- banning waste trade, while promoting green, toxic free and democratic design of consumer products.

Website: www.ban.org

CONTACT: Basel Action Network

Mr. Colby Self

Green Ship Recycling Campaign Director

Basel Action Network

+001 206 250 5652

Source: 28 October 2010

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/10/28

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/21322