Meanwhile, lawmakers are considering legislation that would loosen current regulations and help meet a 2006 congressional deadline to dispose of nearly 150 retired ships, roughly half of which are moored in the James River in Norfolk, Va. In part to meet the lawmakers' concerns, MARAD last week awarded a new contract to a Texas firm to recycle three of the ships, which collectively have come to be known as the "Navy ghost fleet."

The ghost fleet is mired in a lawsuit filed by Basel Action Network and the Sierra Club against MARAD, an agency of the Transportation Department, and the U.S. EPA over the agencies' environmental reviews on the toxic ships. Plaintiffs charge that MARAD is trying to deliver nearly 150 ships to foreign and domestic shipyards for scrapping without fully evaluating the nature and risks associated with various toxic materials, including PCBs, asbestos, fuel oil and hydraulic fluid.

Of the four ships from the James River fleet sent to a British shipbreaking yard operated by Able UK in October 2003, PCB levels range from 34 tons to 286 tons per ship, while asbestos levels range from 61 tons to 252 tons, according to the motion for summary judgment filed by Earthjustice on behalf of the environmental groups. Able UK is under contract to scrap 13 of the James River Reserve Fleet, but that work has been suspended by a British court.

Among the nine remaining ships in the James River, PCB levels range from 14 tons to 47 tons per ship, while asbestos levels range from 61 tons to at least 104 tons, court documents show. Most of the ships also contain fuel oil and hydraulic fluid, but exact figures on the pollution remain unknown.

Environmentalists maintain that until the extent of the pollution is better known and its exposure risks assessed, the ships should remain in place in Virginia. Towing them across the Atlantic Ocean, or even to nearer scrapyards, poses a serious risk of contamination, they say.

"MARAD's reliance on generalized waste inventories and last-minute tow surveys illegally deprives the public of meaningful participation in MARAD's decision whether a particular vessel should be exported for disposal and recovery, based on its particular hazardous waste inventory," states the environmental groups' request for summary judgment. "This failure also deprives MARAD of sufficient time to adequately assess the environmental impacts of exporting any vessel substituted at the last minute."

DOJ spokesman Blain Rethmeier declined to comment on how MARAD would respond to the summary judgement motion, citing agency policy about ongoing litigation. Judge Rosemary Collyer of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia will preside over a motions hearing Aug. 6 in the case, Basel Action Network et al. v. Maritime Administration et al.

Next month, plaintiffs and defendants are scheduled to file final briefs before the hearing. While Collyer is unlikely to issue a ruling before August, Earthjustice attorney Martin Wagner said plaintiffs expect a quick ruling because MARAD has expressed interest in exporting ships before the end of the fall towing season.

MARAD faces a 2006 deadline to dispose of 146 decommissioned ships that sit idle in Navy ports and other facilities around the country. Since last fall, about 70 ships moored in Norfolk have been locked in a tug-of-war between citizens who want the ships removed from the James River and those who want greater assurances from MARAD that the toxic materials will be handled properly by scrap yards.

The issue gained international notoriety last year after MARAD towed four of the 13 ships contracted to Able UK across the Atlantic Ocean to be scrapped in an English shipyard only to have a British judge strike down the license issued by England's Environment Agency for the disposal of the ships in the port of Teesside (Greenwire [subscription required], March 18).

Last month, Britain's Environment Agency issued a report stating that the four ships awaiting disposal by Able UK have caused no pollution problems during their six-month stay on the River Tees in northeast England and dismantling the ships in England "could represent the best environmental option." Able UK will have to obtain further permits to do the work, however (Greenwire, May 13). But MARAD spokeswoman Susan Clark said the United States is "very unlikely" to transport ships as scheduled to Able UK, citing the ongoing legal and permitting problems (Greenwire, June 1).

John Irvin, MARAD's director of congressional and public affairs, said the agency has no plans to ship additional vessels overseas this year, and that at least some of the remaining ships will be scrapped at U.S. facilities, including three vessels contracted to Marine Metals of Brownsville, Texas.

MARAD Administrator Capt. William Schubert announced a $3.1 million contract June 24 to Marine Metals to dispose of the three James River ships by the end of this summer. "We have seriously faced this task in the wake of many inherited challenges and hurdles," Schubert said. "It remains our goal to remove high-priority ships from our fleets as soon as possible."

Meanwhile, Rep. Phil English (R-Pa.) introduced a bill in May to relax federal environmental standards that he said would help U.S. ship recyclers compete against foreign firms. And under a request from Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-Texas), the General Accounting Office is investigating the need for a national policy on ship recycling.

"While MARAD could foster and grow relationships with the domestic shipbreaking industry and organize a program and schedule to continually move ships to breaking, MARAD has chosen to spend an inordinate amount of time and resources in exporting ships to England for dismantling," Ortiz said a letter to the agency's comptroller, Gen. David Walker.

Environmentalists also remain concerned about the legislation offered by English, which would suspend for six years certain federal regulations pertaining to shipbreaking and toxic materials. The rules derive from a Clinton administration ban on the export of PCBs and provisions of the Toxic Substance Control Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The bill also temporarily would suspend Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act provisions as they apply to ship recycling contracts.

"It's nonsense that by throwing out environmental laws, you're going to help anybody," said Jim Puckett of Basel Action Network. ""It'll just facilitate the outsourcing of jobs and outsourcing of toxic waste."