First Put on the Internet: 19 Dec. 2005. Last Update: 6 April 2006.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Hoy Marine at Yaquina Bay (Newport)
Cleanup of Shipyards at Coos Bay
Oregon DEQ Requires a Clean Water Act Permit (Not Just a General Stormwater Permit) For One Shipyard
A shipbreaking firm may not repair ships like Hoy Marine at Newport or a ship repair yard at Coos Bay, but in-water shipbreaking firms would be working with hazardous materials. So it is possible that a shipbreaking firm could leave contamination for taxpayers to clean up like like shipyards in Newport and Coos Bay, especially since the stability of some ship recycling companies is in question. Further, there are questions about whether a ship salvaging company carries enough liability insurance.
The Port of Newport may have forgotten its involvement with Hoy Marine that was owned by Guy "Bud" Hoy and the pollution and costly cleanup that resulted (14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21). Accordingly, a refresher discussion of Hoy Marine is appropriate here.
The Port of Newport leased its Yaquina Bay property that was used for boat repair to Hoy Marine in 1995 (17, 20). The operation of this facility created pollution in estuarine sediments as well as on the upland portion of the site (15, 16, 17, 20). In spite of seven Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) warnings and two fines to Hoy Marine during 1996-1999 (15, 18), the pollution problem continued. Hoy Marine did not pay the fines (18).
In July 1998, the DEQ referred the site to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which took samples in May 1999 and searched the site in June 1999 (15). The contamination was bad enough that the EPA was pursuing having the site designated as a Superfund site (16, 20). However, Oregon DEQ took over because EPA Superfund cleanup takes a long time, and the DEQ wanted it completed sooner and with more flexibility (16, 20). The EPA's main action only appears to have been to prosecute Hoy for violations of the Clean Water Act (15, 18). It acted only some time after pollution was reported to it.
Cleanup began in 1999 (16), the upland cleanup was completed in 2001 (20), and most contaminated estuarine sediments were dredged in early 2004 and deposited on Port of Newport property near the International Terminal, not far from Foulweather Trawl (20, 21). But some low level contamination in estuarine sediments remains and needs to be monitored (20).
DEQ spent more than $500,000 in the cleanup, with the Port paying $75,000 in cleanup costs and $37,000 for a study of site contamination (20). The Port also suffered loss of revenues because Hoy started missing lease payments in 1998, and the Port was forced to foreclose in 1999 (17). Some of the pollution at the site could have been a result of previous owners and lease holders (17, 20), and some of them also contributed to the costs of cleanup (20), though Commercial Iron Works which rented the site in 1994-1995 was bankrupt (17). Hoy "did not have the funds to contribute significantly to the cleanup," so, in 2001, the Oregon DEQ declared the site an "orphan" site to cover most of the costs of cleanup by using DEQ funds in its Orphan Site Account that is funded in the State of Oregon budget (20). In other words, taxpayers paid for part of the cleanup as part of the State Orphan Fund; I do not know if taxpayers within the Port District may also have indirectly paid for the Port's costs.
The Port's involvement has not ended with Hoy Marine contamination, since the DEQ requires that the dredged material deposited on Port property remain capped and continues to need to be monitored, and the Port is debating about how to proceed with leasing that site for construction (20, 21).
There are several lessons that could be learned from the Port of Newport's lease with Hoy Marine:
1) The Oregon DEQ did not prevent pollution
2) The U.S. EPA did not prevent pollution and was slow to act; its main action appears to have been to prosecute Hoy
3) Lease holders of Port of Newport property can contaminate in spite of DEQ warnings not to do so
4) The Port of Newport is financially liable for pollution on its property even though it may be leased to a business
5) A lease holder of Port of Newport property may not pay all the costs of pollution cleanup
6) Even after the pollution is cleaned up there can be continued issues for the Port as a consequence of the pollution
7) Taxpayers have paid for part of the decontamination cost on Port of Newport property.
Since a shipbreaking firm will be working with hazardous materials that can cause pollution, and there are questions about the stability of some shipbreaking companies and their insurance coverage, citizens can be concerned that a shipbreaking company may leave a mess to clean up like the Port's lease to Hoy Marine did.
[Return to Top or to Contents about a Shipbreaking Facility in Oregon or Washington]
In February 2000, the entire article by the Oregonian's Brent Hunsberger (178) is:
Workers expect to soon finish the bulk of a $1 million, state-funded cleanup of an abandoned Coos Bay shipyard steeped with metals and a toxic pesticide. Since January, crews have dredged 2,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediments from the former Mid-Coast Marine ship repair and maintenance yard near the Isthmus Slough. The site is the last of five Coos Bay shipyards to be cleaned up under state supervision. "It's by far the worst of the five," said Karl Morgenstern, project manager at the Department of Environmental Quality's Eugene office.
In 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considered declaring Mid-Coast Marine a Superfund site after the DEQ discovered sediments laced with metals and tributyltin. Tributyltin, or TBT, is a pesticide used to keep marine life off ship hulls. The DEQ suspects the pollutant caused ball-shaped deformities found in the bay's pacific oysters in the late 1980s.
The EPA eventually approved the DEQ's cleanup plan, which is being financed by the state's Orphan Site Fund. The $25.5 million bond program -- financed by lottery revenues, general fund money and waste-permit fees -- pays for cleanups involving unwilling, unknown or bankrupt parties. The agency tapped the fund after the shipyard closed in 1997 and its owner, Lewis Lee, declared bankruptcy.
[Return to Top or to Contents about a Shipbreaking Facility in Oregon or Washington]
The Oregon DEQ's suggestion in the following article that a "miscommunication" resulted in one shipyard not even having a general stormwater permit is evidence that the DEQ did not adequately inspect the facility, but chose to rely only on what the shipyard told the DEQ.
In March 2005, the entire article, "Safe Water at Stake in Saga of Two Shipyards," by the Oregonian's Joe Rojas-Burke (177) is (boldface added):
Rainwater is a hugely expensive problem for the shipyard run by Cascade General in the Portland Harbor. Runoff from storms can flush a ship's discarded paint, sandblasting grit, oil and other toxic debris straight into the Willamette River.
But even as Oregon regulators forced that shipyard to spend millions of dollars to comply with environmental regulations, they allowed competing Sundial Marine Tug and Barge Works shipyard in Troutdale to be excused from stormwater regulation for more than a year. All the while, the Troutdale shipyard continued sandblasting and other work alongside the Columbia River.
The story of how state regulators let the shipyard off the hook is a revealing case study of the Department of Environmental Quality's troubled effort to safeguard the state's rivers from pollution. The case is unfolding in the wake of an in-depth federal review that found widespread gaps and weaknesses in the way the state agency regulates industrial sites and city sewage plants. Federal authorities concluded that Oregon waterways are not adequately protected.
Environmental groups have seized on the shipyard case to compel the DEQ to propose sweeping changes for stormwater regulation -- rules that could drive up costs and impose time-consuming permit requirements for a multitude of industries, from small boatyards to home construction.
It began nearly two years ago, when an anonymous tipster alerted an environmental group that a shipyard on the Columbia was operating without a stormwater permit. With no permit, the state has no way to monitor whether toxics are draining into a river -- and no way to impose limits on stormwater pollutants.
Shipyards have attracted scrutiny nationally because the work, done at the edge of waterways, typically generates large volumes of toxic debris. Statewide in Oregon, shipyards use an estimated 400,000 tons of sandblasting grit a year. Pressure-wash water and grit contain paint chips laden with anti-foulants, which can make their way into rivers in stormwater or in windblown dust.
Federal rules specifically name shipbuilding and repair as an industry subject to stormwater regulation under the Clean Water Act. In Washington state, regulators generally require shipyards to obtain two separate permits for disposal of wastewater from rain runoff and pressure washing.
Mark Riskedahl, executive director of Northwest Environmental Defense Center, said he was amazed to discover in March 2003 that Sundial Marine -- a 26-acre facility with a 248-foot-long floating dry-dock -- had no permits for stormwater or wastewater disposal.
"It was clear to me that when it rained large volumes of pollutants would be released directly to the river," Riskedahl said.
Sundial denies that it discharged pollutants into the river. Significantly, even during the months the shipyard was not covered by a stormwater permit, the company was doing nothing wrong, as far as DEQ was concerned.
In December 2001, Sundial's environmental compliance manager wrote to DEQ asking to be released from its stormwater permit requirement. The three-sentence letter said the shipyard did not discharge stormwater and therefore needed no permit. DEQ granted the request about two weeks later, in early January 2002.A "miscommunication"
Dennis Jurries, the stormwater DEQ permit writer who inspected Sundial, said a "miscommunication" led him and the company to conclude that no permit was necessary.
Nobody is accusing DEQ of intentional favoritism. Rather, environmental advocates and industry competitors say inconsistent decisions are the result of the agency's severe manpower shortages.
"DEQ has a single person covering all of the industrial stormwater permits for the Northwest region," said Melissa Powers, a Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center attorney. "He can't visit most of the sites or read most of the pollution control plans."
Kevin Masterson of DEQ's stormwater management program said that permit decisions justifiably vary from one facility to another, and that Cascade General is a much larger shipyard than Sundial.
"Saying that one shipyard is exactly the same as another is not accurate," he said. "To some degree, these are case-by-case determinations." But at the same time, he acknowledged that being short-handed, and having one permit writer to cover a whole region, "makes it hard to be perfectly comprehensive and consistent in all ways."
That sits poorly, however, with companies that have come under the strictest stormwater regulation. "Obviously we'd want everybody we compete with to have to do the exact same things we have to do," said Alan Sprott, director of Environmental Services for Cascade General.
What Jurries called a "miscommunication" derives from confusion over a very few words.
DEQ records show that Sundial violated the stormwater permit it held in 2001 by failing to submit a pollution control plan and tests of runoff for contamination. The company asked Jurries to inspect the site to resolve the matter.
When Jurries asked employees how they handled water discharges from the dry dock, he said they told him that all wastewater was collected and run through an evaporator for disposal -- leaving none to discharges into the river.
Jurries said the miscommunication was about the difference between stormwater and wash water used to clean ships. The company, he said, runs all of its wash water through an evaporator, but as a later inspection would show, not necessarily all stormwater flowing over the dry dock.Federal violation
In March 2003, Riskedahl, the environmental advocate, informed the shipyard and DEQ that lack of a stormwater permit could be a violation of the federal Clean Water Act. The parties met a month later, and Riskedahl said he left the meeting with the understanding that Sundial had agreed to work with DEQ to develop a permit specific to shipbuilding and repair work.
Holly Robinson, Sundial's environmental compliance manager, said it was up to DEQ to develop such an option.
"We just want to do our job and follow the rules," Robinson said. Within days of the meeting, the company applied for a general stormwater permit, which DEQ issued two weeks later on April 24, 2003, with no further site visits.
Riskedahl and other environmental advocates were outraged. The general stormwater permit sets "benchmarks" for limiting pollutants, but industries that exceed the benchmarks aren't subject to fines or penalties. Northwest Environmental Defense Center and Columbia Riverkeeper filed a lawsuit, which DEQ settled in December by agreeing to make significant changes in stormwater regulation.
Among them: DEQ said it will propose new rules that will penalize companies that repeatedly exceed pollution limits; require permit holders to test stormwater runoff more often; and subject all permit applications -- including construction sites -- to a 30-day public comment period. DEQ hasn't released the specific proposal yet.
The agency also agreed to revoke the Sundial shipyard stormwater permit and require the company to apply for a more rigorous individual Clean Water Act permit, the kind that has proved so costly for Cascade General.
But now DEQ is facing a legal challenge from Sundial. The company, in a legal filing, said DEQ has no grounds to revoke its general stormwater permit. Michael Campbell, the attorney representing Sundial, said DEQ is unfairly imposing a higher burden on his client.
"What makes this facility different from hundreds of others that are covered by the general stormwater permit?" he asked.
[Return to Top or to Contents about a Shipbreaking Facility in Oregon or Washington]
14. There are a multitude of articles about the pollution and its cleanup at the Yaquina Bay property that the Port of Newport leased to Hoy Marine, a boat repair yard. Starting in 1999, these are accessible online by doing an "Advanced Search" for "Hoy" in the Archives of the Newport News-Times at http://www.newportnewstimes.com and setting the start date to 1/1/1999.
15. Hall, Shaun. 1999. Federal Investigators Detail Probe of Hoy's Marine Pollution. July 16, Newport News-Times.
16. Anonymous. 1999. State Begins Clean-up of Contamination at Hoy Marine. Dec. 1, Newport News-Times.
17. Anonymous. 1999. Yaquina River Ship Repair Cleanup Has History of Pollution. May 16, Newport News-Times.
18. Anonymous. 2002. Hoy Guilty of Clean Water Act Violations. Jan. 16, Newport News-Times.
19. Gallob, Joel. 2004. Port Unhappy with Perpetual Pollution Disposal Site Monitoring Duty. Nov. 3, Newport News-Times.
20. Gallob, Joel. 2005. State Says Environmental Cleanup at Hoy's Marine Site Complete. Jan. 14, Newport News-Times.
21. Gallob, Joel. 2005. Disposal Site Could Be Leased by Port. Oct. 7, Newport News-Times.
177. Rojas-Burke, Joe. 2005. Safe Water at Stake in Saga of Two Shipyards. March 5, Portland Oregonian. The article is given in its entirety and may be available for a fee by searching Oregonian Archives, http://www.oregonlive.com/search/oregonian/.
178. Hunsberger, Brent. 2000. Cleanup of Abandoned Shipyard Nears Finish. Feb. 5, Portland Oregonian. The article is given in its entirety and may be available for a fee by searching Oregonian Archives, http://www.oregonlive.com/search/oregonian/.
[Return to Top or to Contents about a Shipbreaking Facility in Oregon or Washington]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .