4 September 2003 – Plans to tow to England and dismantle 13 decrepit vessels now in the James River "Ghost Fleet" are running into problems -- from bad weather to environmental opposition -- that threaten to delay or block the overseas shipments.

Activist groups including the Basel Action Network, Earth Justice and Friends of the Earth have vowed to sue the U.S. government to stop the towing of aging ships until their toxic innards are first removed. This way, the groups argue, the rusting vessels could cross the Atlantic Ocean without risk of leaking chemicals or oil as they travel 4,500 miles to a scrap yard in northeast England.

"We fully intend to block it," said Richard Gutierrez, toxics policy analyst for the Seattle-based Basel Action Network, better known by its acronymn, BAN.

"This basically is a transport of pollution from the United States to Great Britain," Gutierrez added. He said his group is concerned about tons of hazardous materials still on the ships, including asbestos, lead paint, mercury and carcinogenic PCBs,a petroleum-based insulant in ship wiring and equipment.

The U.S. Maritime Administration, caretaker of the James River Reserve Fleet, better known as the Ghost Fleet, announced a $17.8 million deal in July that would transport 13 of the most fragile vessels, along with two Navy oilers, to a shipyard in Teesside, England, off the North Sea.

It has been described as the largest disposal contract in the history of the reserve fleet, anchored off Fort Eustis in Newport News, since World War I. About 100 large cargo and military-support ships are parked in the fleet today; nearly 70 are considered obsolete and ready for the scrap heap.

A study two years ago determined that if just two of the ships broke apart, an oil spill stretching 50 miles could result, threatening historic sites such as Jamestown Island and various nature sanctuaries.

The contract calls for the ships to reach or be on their way to the English yard by Nov. 30. The Maritime Administration said this week that it believes the deadline will be met, though it does not know when the ships will leave Virginia.

But several hurdles remain, including the lack of a permit needed to operate a drydock in Teesside, sea-worthiness certification from the U.S. Coast Guard, insurance liabilities, the possible environmental lawsuit, and British approval of a crossing route.

There are two ways to reach Teesside from the United States -- north around the Scottish coast, or south through the English Channel. The popular path is to head north around Scotland, through a treacherous, pristine channel called the Pentland Firth. Scottish and Irish lawmakers have protested the idea, saying they fear an oil or chemical spill that would devastate unspoiled shoreline.

Environmentalists in the United States and Britain said they hope to delay towing until after the November deadline, so they can drum up more opposition to a deal they criticize as ecologically dangerous, politically motivated and possibly in violation of national and international laws controlling the export of hazardous wastes.

A British company, Able UK, owns the scrapping facility in Teesside, near the port city of Hartlepool. The center includes a neighboring hazardous-waste landfill, where most Ghost Fleet toxics would be disposed of.

Also next door is a nuclear power plant and an oil terminal -- part of a heavy industrial corridor along the River Tees that one environmental group calls the "dumping ground of England."

Carole Zagrovic, a Friends of the Earth activist in Teesside, said some soccer fans who come to town sometimes will wear white protective suits and gas masks, a jab intended to upset local fans.

The head of Able UK, Peter Stephenson, told a British newspaper that his yard's experience with industrial and marine wastes is why the contract makes sense. He said the Ghost Fleet job will be "very simple" compared to other work, and will bring some 200 new jobs to the struggling region.

Stephenson told the Evening Gazette that British media coverage of the proposed shipments represents "scaremongering." Some articles include descriptions of President Bush as "the toxic president" for pushing the contract.

"It's the same work we've been doing here for a very long time," he told the paper.

Attempts to contact Able UK for an interview or to answer written questions sent by e-mail were unsuccessful this week.

Marcello Mollo, an attorney with Earth Justice, an environmental group based in California, said there are multiple strategies for blocking the shipments in court.

For one, he said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should have conducted public hearings and accepted public comment before deciding to grant the Maritime Administration a waiver for shipping the vessels -- and their toxic contents -- to another country.

His group has been asked by the Basel Action Network to craft a lawsuit, which would be filed in federal court, either in Virginia or a Western state.

Former President Clinton imposed a ban on exporting unwanted ships and their toxic materials as a way to shield Third World nations from accepting such pollutants and endangering shipyard workers. For years, countries including India, China and Bangladesh took old U.S. ships, but lacked sufficient environmental safeguards and worker-safety rules.

Without a foreign market, the junk ships piled up in places such as the James River. The Bush administration sought, and received, an EPA waiver to Clinton's ban so it could move the ships to Teesside. It also appropriated more money to scrap ships, including a proposed $14 million next fiscal year.

The Coast Guard's Marine Safety Office in Norfolk said the 13 ships slated for disposal would be moved one at a time to Hampton Roads, then tied together in pairs and floated to the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay.

From there, they would be towed in twos, one behind the other, across the Atlantic to England.

Jerry Crooks, a Coast Guard spokesman, said it would not be wise to move the ships any time past November, when the North Atlantic is especially stormy. His office still is waiting to see plans and data for ocean-going certification.

"They told us they'd give us five days advance notice," Crooks said, "so we're just waiting. The ball's in their court."

Reach Scott Harper at 446-2340 or sharper@pilotonline.com