Don Olney
12-01-2003, 01:46 PM
December 1, 2003
HARTLEPOOL JOURNAL
British Greet Navy Rustbuckets With a Volley of Venom
LIZETTE ALVAREZ
HARTLEPOOL, England — The arrival of a couple of decrepit United States Navy ships has set off protests seldom seen in this job-hungry town, which for decades held its tongue, and its nose, as it welcomed petrochemical plants, steel and coal companies, and a nuclear power plant.
The ships — two mammoth, rusted-out, 58-year-old vessels — bob alongside the docks of a salvage yard, waiting, perhaps indefinitely, to be stripped of their toxic innards and recycled for their steel. Two other decommissioned Navy ships, both auxiliary oil tankers when they were in their prime, were also headed to the yard from Virginia to face a similarly uncertain future.
The crux of the tug of war is this: the United States government is under a 2006 deadline to scrap or dispose of a backlog of 130 obsolete "ghost" ships, 90 of which make up its "James River Reserve Fleet," an eyesore floating on the James River near Newport News, Va.
American companies lack the capacity to scrap all the ships by the deadline, at least not at an affordable price, so the Maritime Administration, the arm of the United States Transportation Department that oversees the building and scrapping of ships, contracted the work to foreign companies.
Able UK, which specializes in dismantling and recycling mostly oil rigs and power stations, won a $17.8 million contract to dismantle 13 ships. Britain granted the necessary permits, and the first two ships, pulled by Dutch tugs, set sail Oct. 6. Residents near the James River were overjoyed.
When news articles appeared that the ships would be heading to Hartlepool, residents here grew concerned about the environmental dangers. They discussed the issue at tea-and-coffee meetings three months ago but the debate has now snowballed into a court battle. Protests have turned nasty and one local politician resigned from the Labor Party. The high court is expected to decide the issue in December.
The first two ships are empty of hazardous cargo but contain 61 tons of asbestos built into their engine rooms and 34.1 tons of solid polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) in wiring and gaskets.
In their liquid form, PCB's are suspected of causing cancer. The ships are also carrying a modest 105 tons of oil (tankers often carry thousands of tons of oil).
In total, as both sides in the dispute agree, 98 percent of the ships can be recycled and about 2 percent must be disposed of as toxic waste.
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/11/30/international/01ship.jpg
The Maritime Administration and Able UK say the environmental dangers are minimal. The job, Able UK officials argue, will not only create temporary work for 200 people but is one of the simplest and smallest it has ever undertaken.
Peter Stephenson, an Able UK executive, acknowledged that his company had never handled large ships but said it specialized in dismantling huge oil rigs and power stations, which are more difficult to break down safely. Each power station is about the size of 5 to 10 of those ships, he said.
"And each power station has about 200 times more asbestos than all these ships put together," Mr. Stephenson said.
The British Environmental Agency has said that the ships posed no danger and that Able UK had the proper facilities to handle them safely.
The Maritime Administration is no less flummoxed. Before 1991, the government did not pay to scrap its ships, sending them instead to developing countries with few environmental safeguards. That practice was stopped, and now the government, unlike commercial ship owners, is held to much higher environmental standards.
Blindsided by the opposition, company officials and national politicians blame environmentalists for whipping up an ill-informed frenzy. Britons, as politicians point out, need little prodding after the war in Iraq to jump for the Yankee jugular.
"The only off-putting image is by those who don't base their statements on facts and talk of dangerous toxic wastes," scolded Peter Mandelson, the influential member of Parliament who represents Hartlepool, in a rant against the local press and local politicians.
"It's a false picture designed to mislead people and in the process it creates a negative image of the town," he added, shortly after touring the Able UK salvage yard.
Residents, and activists from Friends of the Earth, which has helped organize local opposition, disagree, and say simply that toxic waste is, in short, toxic.
"We don't want it," said Geoff Lilley, 53, a retired city councilor who argues that the bulk of the opposition comes from Hartlepool residents and not "tree-huggers."
From the sunroom in his modest home, a pair of binoculars at the ready for bird watching in his immaculate garden, Mr. Lilley went on to say that he could not fathom why the "most powerful, wealthiest and one would argue, most civilized country on the planet" was unable to deal with its own waste.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
HARTLEPOOL JOURNAL
British Greet Navy Rustbuckets With a Volley of Venom
LIZETTE ALVAREZ
HARTLEPOOL, England — The arrival of a couple of decrepit United States Navy ships has set off protests seldom seen in this job-hungry town, which for decades held its tongue, and its nose, as it welcomed petrochemical plants, steel and coal companies, and a nuclear power plant.
The ships — two mammoth, rusted-out, 58-year-old vessels — bob alongside the docks of a salvage yard, waiting, perhaps indefinitely, to be stripped of their toxic innards and recycled for their steel. Two other decommissioned Navy ships, both auxiliary oil tankers when they were in their prime, were also headed to the yard from Virginia to face a similarly uncertain future.
The crux of the tug of war is this: the United States government is under a 2006 deadline to scrap or dispose of a backlog of 130 obsolete "ghost" ships, 90 of which make up its "James River Reserve Fleet," an eyesore floating on the James River near Newport News, Va.
American companies lack the capacity to scrap all the ships by the deadline, at least not at an affordable price, so the Maritime Administration, the arm of the United States Transportation Department that oversees the building and scrapping of ships, contracted the work to foreign companies.
Able UK, which specializes in dismantling and recycling mostly oil rigs and power stations, won a $17.8 million contract to dismantle 13 ships. Britain granted the necessary permits, and the first two ships, pulled by Dutch tugs, set sail Oct. 6. Residents near the James River were overjoyed.
When news articles appeared that the ships would be heading to Hartlepool, residents here grew concerned about the environmental dangers. They discussed the issue at tea-and-coffee meetings three months ago but the debate has now snowballed into a court battle. Protests have turned nasty and one local politician resigned from the Labor Party. The high court is expected to decide the issue in December.
The first two ships are empty of hazardous cargo but contain 61 tons of asbestos built into their engine rooms and 34.1 tons of solid polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) in wiring and gaskets.
In their liquid form, PCB's are suspected of causing cancer. The ships are also carrying a modest 105 tons of oil (tankers often carry thousands of tons of oil).
In total, as both sides in the dispute agree, 98 percent of the ships can be recycled and about 2 percent must be disposed of as toxic waste.
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/11/30/international/01ship.jpg
The Maritime Administration and Able UK say the environmental dangers are minimal. The job, Able UK officials argue, will not only create temporary work for 200 people but is one of the simplest and smallest it has ever undertaken.
Peter Stephenson, an Able UK executive, acknowledged that his company had never handled large ships but said it specialized in dismantling huge oil rigs and power stations, which are more difficult to break down safely. Each power station is about the size of 5 to 10 of those ships, he said.
"And each power station has about 200 times more asbestos than all these ships put together," Mr. Stephenson said.
The British Environmental Agency has said that the ships posed no danger and that Able UK had the proper facilities to handle them safely.
The Maritime Administration is no less flummoxed. Before 1991, the government did not pay to scrap its ships, sending them instead to developing countries with few environmental safeguards. That practice was stopped, and now the government, unlike commercial ship owners, is held to much higher environmental standards.
Blindsided by the opposition, company officials and national politicians blame environmentalists for whipping up an ill-informed frenzy. Britons, as politicians point out, need little prodding after the war in Iraq to jump for the Yankee jugular.
"The only off-putting image is by those who don't base their statements on facts and talk of dangerous toxic wastes," scolded Peter Mandelson, the influential member of Parliament who represents Hartlepool, in a rant against the local press and local politicians.
"It's a false picture designed to mislead people and in the process it creates a negative image of the town," he added, shortly after touring the Able UK salvage yard.
Residents, and activists from Friends of the Earth, which has helped organize local opposition, disagree, and say simply that toxic waste is, in short, toxic.
"We don't want it," said Geoff Lilley, 53, a retired city councilor who argues that the bulk of the opposition comes from Hartlepool residents and not "tree-huggers."
From the sunroom in his modest home, a pair of binoculars at the ready for bird watching in his immaculate garden, Mr. Lilley went on to say that he could not fathom why the "most powerful, wealthiest and one would argue, most civilized country on the planet" was unable to deal with its own waste.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company