The call for the ships' return to Virginia, made Monday by the United Kingdom's environment minister, occurred three days after the British government revoked the permits required to dismantle the ships at an English recycling site.

The first two ships are scheduled to arrive in England sometime next week, but they will have nowhere to dock if a new agreement isn't reached on a disposal plan.

Britain's Environment Agency revoked its permits for the scrapping work after learning that the British scrapper, Able UK Ltd., doesn't have a dry dock in place yet.

"The advice given by the Environment Agency to the U.S. authorities is that the ships should return to the U.S. or that another environmentally sound solution should be found," said Environment Minister Elliott Morley, who fielded questions about the ships in the House of Commons in London.

"We have to take into account safety and the weather, but those considerations do not overrule the very clear advice that the ships should return," a transcript indicated he said.

The U.S. Maritime Administration, which owns the James River Reserve Fleet off Fort Eustis, said Tuesday that there were no plans to turn the ships around. But British revocation of permits set off a mad scramble by U.S. officials to find a way to dispose of the ships in England while pleasing both governments.

"We're discussing a variety of options," said Robyn Boerstling, spokeswoman for the Maritime Administration, or MARAD. She declined to elaborate.

U.K. Environment Minister Morley, in the Commons, raised the possibility of scrapping the ships in a third country, if one could be found that met environmental standards.

Boerstling ruled out that possibility: "That is not an option on the table. We have always vowed to do this in a responsible manner."

Turning the ships around, Boerstling said, would raise numerous logistical and safety concerns. Recrossing the Atlantic Ocean this late in the year, she said, is dangerous because of rough weather. Obtaining insurance for the voyage could be problematic, along with finding a towing company that would be available to make the trip on such short notice, she said.

The impasse has set tempers flaring across the Atlantic and raised the possibility that the ships - decried by environmental groups as toxic hazards - could be adrift at sea with nowhere to go.

David Lidington, a member of the Commons, called for an "urgent inquiry" and asked Morley to explain "how the government and their various agencies have got themselves into this almighty muddle."

The four ships are the first of 13 scheduled to go to England for scrapping under a $17.8 million contract with Able UK. The deal also calls for MARAD to sell two uncompleted oil tankers, which the agency said were worth a total of $3 million. Environmental groups have sued to block the trans-Atlantic towing of ships that are loaded with toxic PCBs. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order halting the remaining nine ships until at least next spring, pending further review.

Morley said Britain's Environment Agency had granted permission for the scrapping work on the assumption that Able UK would dismantle the ships in a dry dock, which is considered environmentally safer than a wet dock. But Able UK failed to win a local planning permit needed to rebuild gates that would seal off its basin from the harbor and create a dry dock.

Morley also revealed that on Oct. 3 - three days before the first ships set sail for England - the Environment Agency had contacted MARAD to alert U.S. officials of the problem and to recommend a delay.

"The Environment Agency did act on the emerging doubts and advised that the ships should not leave until all the matters were resolved," an official transcript of the parliamentary debate indicates Morley said.

The first two ships, the Canisteo and Caloosahatchee, set sail from Hampton Roads as scheduled Oct. 6.

Boerstling, at MARAD, disputed that account. She said her agency received an e-mail from Britain on Oct. 3 that noted the problem with a dry-dock permit.

She said the e-mail read that MARAD "may wish to consider the timing of the departure of the vessels to the U.K."

But the message wasn't a directive forbidding the towing to proceed, she said.

MARAD continued to have confidence that Able UK would obtain a permit for a dry dock, she said.

MARAD maintains that its contract with Able UK doesn't require a dry dock for the scrapping work to proceed, though that question could become subject of debate in the pending lawsuit.