Able UK and the US Ghost Fleet
Impact Home page		Also in this section: Minister misleads MPs on Ghost Fleet wastes 12th November - Unwelcoming the Ghost Fleet Why the HSE said yes Why the Basel Action Network says No What's behind the side-deal? Objection Letter

SUMMARY

The first four of a fleet long-disused and leaking US navy support vessels have been towed across the Atlantic from James River, Virginia, destination Able UK's Graythorp yard on Teesside.

If, as the firm intends, they are scrapped here, scrap steel is to be sold on the international market, but toxic wastes will remain permanently on Teesside.

The US and UK governments initially gave their blessing to the contract for the first thirteen ships - but nine are held in the US pending legal hearings over the short cuts taken by the US agencies responsible. Four were allowed to sail, but with no dry dock ready for their arrival, the UK declared the shipment illegal and demanded a stop to the second pair of four ships. The US government ignored that, so there are now four ships berthed at Hartlepool. Three of the deteriorating ships stuck in the James river are being be sent to a Texas shipbreaker instead, and other ships substituted.

The promise of 200 jobs at Hartlepool is being held out. But there's reason to think the dangers are much more real than the jobs, and there's much more to this deal than recycling a few ships.

This briefing looks at some of the factors

CURRENT SITUATION

The U.S. desperately wants rid of the growing numbers of obsolete and dangerous ships among the US National Defense Reserve Fleet, costly to keep afloat and a constant threat to the environment around them. About 70 of the 130 vessels are moored in the James River in Virginia. Dismantling them in the USA is costly - so the regulatory barriers preventing their removal overseas are being bypassed, opening the way for shipyards worldwide to bid for the work.

That's where Teesside, and Able UK, come in.

---

Until recently, the US Administration didn't want to start spending money to get rid of ships that once they'd sold to the highest bidder; but this year Congress released $31 million dollars to the Marine Administration (MARAD) to make a start on disposing of the 74 most obsolete and hazardous ships.

Until 1994, such ships - containing hazardous and toxic materials - would be sold to breakers in India, Bangladesh, or China, to be beached, broken up and salvaged under appalling conditions for the workers and environment. President Clinton imposed a moratorium on this practice by banning their export - but late in 2002 President Bush revoked the order.

Other US regulations preventing the export of hazardous wastes would still have kept the ships in the States - but now the EPA (Environment Protection Agency) has agreed to turn a blind eye to the the Toxics Substances Control Act (which places a strict ban on all exports of PCBs greater in concentration than 50ppm) so that they can be exported. This 'enforcement discretion' imposing conditions on the way the ships are to be scrapped, is reproduced on the Friends of the Earth web site (link)

During 2003 MARAD sealed a $17.8 million deal with a New York company, PSRP (Post Service Remediation Partners, part of The Pyne Companies) which will involve 13 of the oldest craft being towed 4000 miles to England for dismantling at the Able UK yard at Graythorp, with landfill of the hazardous waste close by. Sweetening the deal, $3 million of the contract payment will be made in kind, in the form of two more modern uncompleted oil tankers, believed to be worth very much more. Since the contract was signed, Able UK have bought PSRP out and should be free to sell the two outside the USA once they're completed (a job that has, we believe, to be done in the US). This intriguing side of the deal is explored here

Click HERE for the contract details, conditions, and price (a 531KB pdf file) from the MARAD web site.

The Ships and the Journey

The Basel Action Network has (October 2003) released an authoritative summary describing the condition of each ship and the dangers they pose to workers and to environment. Recommended reading, and available here as a 356K Word Document

The James River Fleet, better known as 'the Ghost Fleet' is mostly made up of elderly craft 'put on one side' for use to support the US Navy in time of war. Some of the ships are now well over 50 years old, and well past any possible use. They were built at a time when the extensive use of hazardous materials in construction was commonplace - for instance lead in the paint, asbestos, and PCB's (polychlorinated biphenyls) that were especially valued for their fire retardant properties. (see, for instance, www.mikey.net/aue/pcb.html, a divers web site)

The vessels named in the contract (listed here with their tonneage and year of construction):

Delivered to Graythorp, November 2003:
Canopus (12,618 - 1965)
Compass Island (14,170 - 1953)
Canisteo (10,723 - 1945)
Caloosahatchee (10,300 - 1945)
Diverted to Texan shipbreakers, June 2004:
American Banker (11,953 - 1962)
Mormacmoon (7,545 - 1965)
Santa Cruz (9,982 - 1966)
Held in Virginia pending legal challenge (as at June 2004):
Mormacwave (9,964tes - 1962)
Donner (5,323 - 1945)
Protector (5,174 - 1945)
Rigel (8097 - 1955)
Santa Isabel (9,982 - 1967)
American Ranger (7,545 - 1965).

The total weight is 123,376 tonnes

In the words of the Marine Administration (MARAD) , "These vessels, many of which are 50 years in age, pose significant environmental threat due to the presence of hazardous substances such as asbestos and solid and liquid polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). There have been oil spills and some of the deteriorated ships are in danger of sinking." (source)

A local paper, the Virginia Pilot, published a graphic report on the condition of the fleet in April 2002 - it's well worth taking a look at it here

Assurances.........

• Before leaving the James River, the thirteen craft would be emptied of easily removable chemicals, notably any liquid PCBs
• The ships are subject to a seaworthiness survey and permission from various regulatory bodies, and will have to be insured, before towing is allowed. The first four ships, the Caloosahatchee, the Canisteo, the Compass Island and the Canopus were duly cleared subject to specified work being carried out.

....and Fears

• Scotland was quick to object to the ships entering its waters, fearing that this and any future convoys will be a real threat to sensitive marine environments that are difficult to navigate, such as the Pentland Firth . Therefore the planned route is through the English Channel !
• If any of the ships should sink en route, MARAD will simply provide another one from the Ghost Fleet to be broken up at Hartlepool
• Given the toxic nature of the ships' contents, there are fears both for the people pressed into jobs dismantling them, and for neighbourhoods that might be affected by the continuing presence of the wastes in the local environment
• The whole deal creates precedents - for the import of foreign hazardous waste into Britain if jobs are promised, and for the export of hazardous wastes from the USA. It is known that the US has no qualms about abandoning President Clinton's moratorium on ship exports to Asia.

ABLE UK & THE GRAYTHORP FACILITY

Able UK is a private company, owned and run by Peter Stephenson. It has become a major buyer of investment land, which forms a substantial part of its business. It has continued its scrapping operation, with no union representation and so far as we can tell it is not a member of any of the responsible trade federations.

It owns what it calls dry dock, at the head of the Seaton Channel, a couple of miles inside the Tees river mouth, and close by the nuclear power station at Hartlepool (see its own description, with photo.) In truth it is far from dry, the gates failed catastrophically some years ago, leaving the basin wide open to the tides. In practice it has been used as a 'merchant' facility for whatever work comes to hand, from scrapping oil rigs to importing cars. The company's own description of its assets and services is on the Able UK web site, with a supplementary site set up to defend the 'Ghost Fleet' contract.

PLANS TO DRY THE DOCK

The company's intention has been to bring the obsolete ships into this wet dock, then build a temporary dam outside where the gates should be, then drain the basin to allow scrapping to take place in 'dry' conditions. On August 18th, the company requested planning permission for these works, which could affect the SSSI (site of special scientific interest) bordering the basin. This last vestige of the Tees estuary's once extensive tidal mudflats has international recognition as a 'Ramsar' site. English Nature, the Government's statutory guardian of the natural environment, joined many national and local objectors to the planning application and demanded an Environmental Impact Assessment. Faced with the delay, Able UK promptly withdrew the application, claiming they have an old permission granted by the unaccountable Teesside Development Corporation in 1997 to build a rock bund wall instead - potentially more damaging than a coffer dam. The local council has found no evidence of any permission that is still valid, so could start legal proceedings against Able if they should start to build.

Clearly the company cannot promise its customers 'dry' shipbreaking, as required by the MARAD contract, when its permission to construct a dry dock is so uncertain. In fact Mr Stephenson went on record (8th October) to say that the job could be done without a dry dock, a claim he still repeats. Under the circumstances it is a mystery why MARAD, which had been told the inadequacies of the yard, and that the vital 'Transfrontier Shipment of Waste' authority was no longer valid, still chose to despatch the fleet.

A 'WORLD CLASS' SHIPBREAKING FACILITY ??... maybe, one day

The Graythorp yard is not, as it stands, the 'world class' facility that Mr Stephenson and the development agencies like to claim. But they do have ambitions, which involve pumping lots of public money into a multimillion scheme to construct new dock gates. The money, from the European Regional Development Fund, would have to be match funded from other public sources (perhaps One North East, but they won't tell us!). It appears to be conditional on the company fulfilling the Ghost Fleet contract.

The outcome would be a large dry basin that Able could add to its property portfolio. Mr Stephenson believes it will meet the Royal Navy's own requirements for decommissioning redundant ships. The possibility of scrapping nuclear submarines at this 'new' Graythorp is not ruled out.

THE LANDFILL

Able UK also runs a special (i.e. hazardous) waste landfill site a couple of hundred yards away at Seaton Meadow. This is where the non-liquid toxic wastes from the ships are to be buried

When the Ghost Fleet' plans first became public, Mr Stephenson reassured us that the hazardous wastes would amount to perhaps 0.1% by weight of the ships. Now, this estimate is closer to 5% (including liquids), which would include some 100 tonnes of asbestos on each ship.

UK regulations do at present allow solid PCBs to be landfilled in approved hazardous waste sites - provided their licences allow it. In mid-December it was revealed by Friends of the Earth that the Seaton Meadow site licence specifically forbids the landfilling of halogenated biphenyls, a group of chemicals that includes PCBs - which suggests that these materials will have to be incinerated after all, and a variation on the EPA's 'enforcement discretion' negotiated, unless the Environment Agency is prepared to withdraw its own prohibition. (see FoE press release and links)

The landfill site's record is not as squeaky clean as has been presented. For instance, it is vulnerable to outbreaks of fire... On Tuesday 22nd July appliances from miles around were called out to deal with a fire at Seaton Meadow, with a smoke cloud spreading across the area... the story emerged in the Evening Gazette of 23rd July, though it didn't mention the Able UK connection. The cause, we're told, was spontaneous ignition of stored lime.

Burning PCBs in any form at 'normal' temperatures creates and liberates dioxins, among the most toxic and persistent chemicals known to man.

Management of the tip has failed to meet statutory standards, threatening the sensitive local environment. So much so that in November 2000, and again in February 2001, the Environment Agency was obliged to suspend the company's operating licence. This rare step was taken after several warnings were not acted upon.

All this gives little confidence in the yard's claims of responsible waste management!

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE HAZARDOUS WASTE TRADE

The Basel Convention (www.basel.int/pub/basics.html) - lists PCBs and other materials to be found on these ships as hazardous wastes that should be disposed of in the same country (except for those countries that have no means to dispose of them) and forbids their export to third world countries. The US has not ratified the convention, but Europe (and the UK) have. There's lots more information, including the text, on the same site.

Among the principles accepted by all parties to the convention are the proximity principle - wastes should be disposed of close to where they arise - and a general rule (in part 5 of Article 4) "A Party shall not permit hazardous wastes or other wastes to be exported to a non-Party or to be imported from a non-Party"

The Seattle-based BASEL ACTION NETWORK (B.A.N.) is an international network of activists trying to clean up the global trade in toxic waste. B.A.N. is particularly concerned at the way US laws are being weakened to allow the disposal of the Ghost Fleet, and the dangerous wastes it contains, abroad - and our own 'IMPACT' group is a member of B.A.N. In tandem with the Sierra Club, B.A.N. has brought a legal challenge against the authorities in the US for failures in the way this 'export of pollution' has been handled. In an interim ruling (2nd October 2003), the judge has agreed that there is a case to answer - but still allowed the release of the first four ships before the next hearing on October 20th. This was because Congress had specifically called for 'expeditious' action.

In addition, Friends of the Earth, at the request of the Impact group, has successfully challenging the legality of decisions taken by the UK Environment Agency. In the event, the Environment Agency chose not to contest the initial hearing, and instead withdrew its own decision to permit the import and scrapping of the ships. In spite of protests from Able UK's solicitors, the High Court accepted the Friends of the Earth case, and confirmed that it would be illegal to break up the ships at Able UK's inadequate dock. That ruling is to be reviewed in detail on December 8th.

DOMESTIC LAW

The UK government must authorise the import of Ghost Fleet ships, and reportedly did so for the first thirteen on 25/7/03, but has no duty to consult local people.

DTI policy is clear - if unobserved! : "The UK has the policy of only permitting imports of hazardous wastes for disposal where the exporting countries do not have and/or cannot reasonably acquire the ability to dispose of the wastes concerned in an environmentally sound manner" (DTI source)

DEFRA confirms that "The import of waste for disposal into the UK is prohibited by national legislation, in support of the principles of proximity and self sufficiency in waste management." Next comes the catch..." However, imports of waste for recovery are allowed ........ to encourage the conservation of natural resources" (letter, 1st August). Presumably the natural resources are the iron ore that the scrap steel will replace - though it's hard to see why the ships have to come all the way here to make it possible! Where 116,000 tonnes of scrap steel are going next after Graythorp has not been disclosed. We know only that they won't be processed locally.

It is also at present illegal (under the Asbestos (Prohibition) Regulations) to import asbestos into Britain. However the Health & Safety Executive can lift the regulations in specific cases if there is exceptional reason, apparently without public consultation. On July 25th, the HSE decided they'd found those exceptional reasons to issue Able UK with an 'exemption certificate'. These reasons can be examined here. It is particularly noted that factors taken into account include 'local authority support' for letting the asbestos in, and a State Department claim that the US hasn't the capacity to do the job, so must consider sending the ships to less safe yards!

EUROPEAN LAW

On October 8th Green MEP Caroline Lucas, whose SE England constituency is one of those directly threatened by the Ghost Fleet, laid a formal complaint before the European Commission alleging that the contract breaches several European environmental statutes (see press release). Environment commissioner Margot Wallstrom immediately called for a halt to the import of the first four ships while the case is examined

HAZARDS

We won't attempt to spell out here what human and environmental threats are posed by these ships and what they have on board. For PCBs, the Clearwater (Hudson River) web site gives a good lay description. For an overview of the effects, management and disposal of asbestos we find www.lhc.org.uk/members/pubs/books/asbestos/asb01.htm very helpful. Otherwise well chosen words in a search engine will reveal any amount of information on asbestos, heavy metals, gender-benders, carcinogenic substances etc.

JOBS ????

IF - and it's a big IF - the first contract leads on to more, Able UK suggest that as many as 200 permanent jobs would be created at Graythorp - a significant boost to employment for as long as the ghost fleet lasts. However, there are real fears that once this precedent (for exporting hazardous wastes from the USA) is set, the Administration will be happy for remaining ships to go to countries where costs - and standards - are much poorer. It is known that the US authorities have been in talks with Asian ship scrappers about the Ghost Fleet. The explicit threat played a part in the UK decision to allow the asbestos into Hartlepool (HSE explanation, 17th September)

It is possible, of course, that the Ghost Fleet could trigger the long term renewal of ship work on the Tees. New dock gates could turn Graythorp into the yard that Able claims it is now - a suitable site for a major ship scrapping business, with waste disposal nearby. The potential for this business is high, with many UK/European single hulled tankers being phased out, and the Royal Navy desperate to dispose of redundant ships and submarines. This scenario would provide plenty of jobs at the yard - if Able UK can inspire the confidence and offer the low prices to win the contracts, and it can be done without damage to neighbouring communities (human and wildlife).

In any event, Teesside's long-standing 'Smoggie' image won't be helped by a continuing flow of hazardous waste coming to the area, never to be returned to its source. What effect that will have on would-be investors in the area, or on the ambitions of our more able (and mobile) young people, is a matter for conjecture.

There are serious concerns (see above) that Able UK has underestimated the hazardous waste problems associated with this contract. How that will impact on the management of the wastes within budget, and on the company's ability to compete for future "Ghost Fleet" contracts, is a matter for conjecture.

All these things suggest that the "200 permanent jobs" may not materialise.

LATEST NEWS UPDATE

To get the latest developments, go to Google's news pages put in the phrase "ghost fleet", or "able uk" and click on 'search news' for the latest press reports

FIVE BIG QUESTIONS

Try these on your local councillors, MPs, newspapers....or tell them what you think!

• Should rich countries like the USA export their ships, known to contain hazardous wastes to countries that offer to dismantle them cheaper than America itself can ?
• Should our own safety agencies (like the Health and Safety Executive) be lifting a ban on importing asbestos, so that the Ghost Fleet can come here?
• Could it be true that even after towage costs across the Atlantic, the British can still do a safe shipbreaking job, dispose of the waste, and offer quality jobs, at less cost than the Americans can? (And if not, what's the catch?)
• Is the US decision to ignore its own environmental laws to send the ships to Britain just an opener to allow future jobs to go to the notorious Asian shipbreakers ?
• Does Teesside really need this work, or does it just mark us down as a place where anyone can get rid of their hazardous waste ?

The Able UK view

Able UK have now put their own briefing on the net with various claims about the companies' performance and reliability (but not with any link to this page!)

Finally....

You could join us in the "Impact" group. We're residents, concerned about the impact of industry on our quality of life, our health, and our environment. We're independent of industry and local councils, and we aim to provide a resource and a platform that local communities can trust and use to improve local conditions.