The so-called "ghost fleet" ships, part of the Navy's inventory of 146 vessels due to be dismantled by 2006, have been the subject of intense fighting between environmentalists and DOT's Maritime Administration, which has sought to send the ships to scrapyards both at home and abroad (Greenwire, March 18).

In a filing last month, DOJ sought to combine two legal challenges involving MARAD's handling of the ships. But one of the plaintiffs has raised opposition to such a move, according to a DOJ courtesy notice filed in federal court yesterday.

The first lawsuit, brought in 2003 by Basel Action Network and the Sierra Club, alleges MARAD and the U.S. EPA violated the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act when they permitted the ships to be exported from the James River for scrapping. The ships contain a variety of toxic substances, including PCBs, asbestos, fuel oil and hydraulic fluid. Judge Rosemary Collyer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will preside over a motions hearing Oct. 1.

The second lawsuit, filed in April by Lynn A. Clark, who co-owns property near the James River fleet, seeks to force the removal of the ships from the river "without further delay," and for EPA to issue permits to allow such removal. That case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and will be heard by Magistrate Judge James Bradberry. DOJ had been scheduled to respond by June 29.

In its June 22 request for consolidation, DOJ cited similar alleged violations under Toxic Substances Control Act. Basel Action Network and the Sierra Club endorsed the motion, but the Virginia property owner opposed, according to a July 6 DOJ courtesy notice. According to the notice, the plaintiff's attorney, Morton Clark, called DOJ July 1 to say his client opposed the motion. Neither the attorney nor Lynn A. Clark was available for comment. The courts involved are awaiting a formal opposition filing from Clark.

Earthjustice attorney Martin Wagner, who represents the environmental groups in the 2003 suit, said consolidation could require an extra hearing, but he noted it would make the overall legal process more efficient. "It seems to be a good candidate for consolidation," Wagner said. "The two cases address the same ships."

Meanwhile, Basel Action Network and the Sierra Club are awaiting response to a summary judgment motion filed early last month in the D.C. district court. DOJ must respond by July 30, and could file its own cross-motion for summary judgment. A hearing in the case had originally had been scheduled for this month, but now is postponed at least until October.

MARAD faces a 2006 congressional deadline to dispose of 146 decommissioned ships sitting idle in Navy ports and other facilities around the country. Since last fall, about 70 ships moored in Norfolk, Va., 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 that the toxic materials will be handled properly.

MARAD initially planned to send a number of ships abroad for scrapping at foreign ports, including three vessels at Teesside, England. But court rulings in both the United States and Great Britian delayed such efforts, forcing MARAD to consider domestic disposal. Last month, the agency announced contracts to send three vessels to a Texas facility (Greenwire, June 29).