The gist of these Bills that are now part of Oregon law:
Table of Contents for Senate Bills 432 and 643
Oregon Senate Bill 432
Oregon Senate Bill 643
Background for Need for Senate Bills 432 and 643
Shipbreaking Is an Ongoing Issue in Oregon
Hazardous Materials in Ships to Be Dismantled
Potential Introduction of Fouling Organisms (Invasive Species) as a Consequence of Shipbreaking
Need for Senate Bills 432 and 643: Inadequate Shipbreaking Regulations in Oregon
Need for Senate Bills 432 and 643: Importance of Dry Docks For Containment during Shipbreaking
Photos of In-water (Wet) Shipbreaking
Newspaper Articles about Senate Bill 432: Requiring Shipbreaking in Dry Dock
How Citizens Can Become Involved in Governmental Actions
References
Links about Shipbreaking in Oregon
Since first publicly announced during 11-12 Feb. 2007, the Daily Astorian (Feb. 13), Coos Bay World (Feb. 15), Portland Oregonian (March 2), Eugene Register-Guard (March 9), and Newport News-Times (March 14) had editorials in favor of Senate Bill 432, which required shipbreaking in dry docks.
The sponsors of Oregon Senate Bill 432 were bipartisan and were not only from the Oregon Coast. They included Senator Joanne Verger (D-Coos Bay); Senator Betsy Johnson (D-Scappoose), Representatives Deborah Boone (D-Cannon Beach), Jean Cowan (D-Newport), Wayne Krieger (R-Gold Beach), Susan Morgan (R-Myrtle Creek), Arnie Roblan (D-Coos Bay), and Brad Witt (D-Clatskanie). The punctuation in the text of the Bill and in the State's Measure History for this Bill (select "Senate Bill" and enter "432" in the number box at http://www.leg.state.or.us/searchmeas.html) indicate that Senator Verger was the lead or chief sponsor as her name was followed by a semicolon; this was also suggested in Barnard (2007).
SB 432 was introduced on 22 January 2007, it passed the Senate by 30-0 on April 16 (also see Associated Press 2007, O'Neill 2007, Anonymous 2007h), passed the House 56-1 on May 3, and was signed by Governor Kulongoski on May 25 to become part of Chapter 150, 2007 Oregon Laws, with an effective date of May 25. Scroll down Governor's May 31 Press Release to see the Governor's comments.
Versions of SB 432 and its history in the Oregon Legislature are available by selecting "Senate Bill" and entering "432" in the number box at http://www.leg.state.or.us/searchmeas.html.
In less than a month, SB 432 was amended by Oregon SB 643.
On 25 May 2007, the same day that the Governor signed SB 432 into law, the Governor proposed some definitional changes in Senate Bill 432 that were to be included as amendments in Senate Bill 643.
Senate Bill 643 created the Shipping Transport of Aquatic Invasive Species Task Force. Some of the purposes of this task force as given in this Bill are to study and make recommendations for combating the introduction of aquatic nonindigenous species associated with shipping-related transport into Oregon waters, practicable and cost-effective ballast water treatment technologies, appropriate standards for discharge of treated ballast water into Oregon waters, and practicable and cost-effective techniques as well as regulations and standards to combat the introduction of aquatic nonindigenous species associated with shipping-related transport into Oregon waters.
SB 643 was introduced on 21 February 2007, a public hearing and work session were held on June 5, amendments to SB 432 were included in the Bill on June 14, the amended Bill passed the Senate 30-0 on June 18 and the House 43-1 on June 20, and it was signed by the Governor on June 20. The Legislature closed this session on June 28, so this Bill was pushed through near the end. Versions of SB 643 and its history in the Oregon Legislature are available by selecting "Senate Bill" and enter "643" in the number box at http://www.leg.state.or.us/searchmeas.html.
The related SB 644 that would have required the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to provide a full-time employee to work on ballast water reporting and regulation did not pass out of the Ways and Means committee before the Legislature adjourned on June 28 (select "Senate Bill" and enter "644" in the number box at http://www.leg.state.or.us/searchmeas.html).
As of 20 August 2007, the results of SB 432 as amended by SB 643 are not yet available in Oregon Revised Statutes or Laws.
The gist of SB 432 as amended by SB 643; note that material in links that is in brackets ("[]") is not included:
The text of the amendments to SB 432 from Section 3 of Enrolled SB 643 are (note that material in brackets ("[]") is deleted from SB 432)):
SECTION 3. Section 1, chapter 150, Oregon Laws 2007 (Enrolled Senate Bill 432), is amended to read: Sec. 1.
(1) As used in this section:
(2) In the State of Oregon, a person:
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2) of this section, a person may in the waters of this state:
(4) Subsection (2) of this section does not apply to the shipbreaking of a flat-bottomed barge that is not self-propelled and that operates in the waters of this state.
(5) This section does not relieve a person from compliance with other state or local laws that apply to shipbreaking, shipwrecks or ship repair including, but not limited to, laws relating to hazardous materials, fouling communities or fouling organisms.
------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOTNOTE. "Waters of this state" in this Bill are defined in Oregon Revised Statute 196.800 (15) in Chapter 196 (http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/196.html) as:
196.800 (15) Waters of this state means natural waterways including all tidal and nontidal bays, intermittent streams, constantly flowing streams, lakes, wetlands and other bodies of water in this state, navigable and nonnavigable, including that portion of the Pacific Ocean which is in the boundaries of this state. Waters of this state does not include the ocean shore, as defined in ORS 390.605, with the exception of those areas where removal or fill activities are regulated under a state-assumed permit program as provided in 33 U.S.C. 1344(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
Go to Table of Contents for Senate Bills 432 and 643 or to Proposed Shipbreaking (Ship Recycling) of U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) or Navy Ships in Oregon or Washington
Shipbreaking was big news in Oregon in 2005 and 2006 with shipbreaking proposals at Newport (Bay Bridge Enterprises of Virginia) and Coos Bay (Environmental Recycling Systems). But shipbreaking had also been considered previously along the Oregon Coast, Astoria, and in Portland (e.g., Anonymous 2007, *24, *30, *41). Sites that were considered by shipbreaking companies in 2005 and 2006 included Newport, Coos Bay, Astoria, St. Helens, Portland, and Linnton (*15, *19, *24, *25, *26, *27, *28, *29, *30, *37).
Shipbreaking will continue to be needed. The primary source of ships to scrap on the West Coast currently are obsolete U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) ships moored at Suisun Bay near San Francisco (see *9, *10, *51). But "there is a massive industry looming, because a whole generation of single-hull tankers have to be phased out over the next 10 years" (*51). Both Bay Bridge Enterprises and Environmental Recycling Systems also proposed to scrap privately owned tankers, ships, and barges (*10, *24).
Shipbreaking is a State of Oregon issue because spillage of hazardous materials and fouling organisms could hurt State of Oregon waters. Accordingly, it is appropriate for the State Legislature to consider rules for shipbreaking.
In 2000, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wrote in their guide for ship scrappers (p. A-6 in *4):
"Many of the vessels currently designated for scrapping were built in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s using what was then state-of-the-art material in their construction. Many of these materials have since been classified as hazardous, including, but are not limited to, asbestos, PCBs, lead, chromates, mercury, and cadmium. Recently, the U.S. Government ship scrapping program has come under criticism because some ship scrapping companies have violated environmental standards, worker health and safety regulations, and accepted ship scrapping practices. Some instances of illegal dumping of asbestos, PCBs, oil, lead, and chromates, as well as dangerous working conditions, have been reported in the United States."
In his statement to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000 (see p. 6 and 8 in *12), Thomas J. Howard, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Maritime and Departmental Programs, U.S. Department of Transportation wrote about U. S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) disposal of their Reserve Fleets in Virginia, California (Suisun Bay), and Texas (boldface added):
"OBSOLETE VESSELS POSE ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
"The 114 obsolete vessels currently awaiting disposal pose environmental risks because they are deteriorating, contain hazardous materials, and contain oil that could leak into the water. These vessels are literally rotting and disintegrating as they await disposal. Some vessels have deteriorated to a point where a hammer can penetrate their hulls. They contain hazardous substances such as asbestos and solid and liquid polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). If the oil from these vessels were to enter the water, immediate and potentially very expensive Federal and state action would be required."
Ship paints can also be toxic as noted on p. 6-1 of the EPA's shipbreaking guide (*4):
"Paint and preservative coatings can be found on both interior and exterior surfaces of a ship. Particularly on older ships, paint may be flammable or may contain toxic compounds, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), heavy metals (e.g., lead, barium, cadmium, chromium, and zinc), and pesticides. Lead compounds, such as red lead tetraoxide (Pb3O4) and lead chromate, have been used extensively in marine paint. In general, metal-based paints, some containing as much as 30 percent heavy metals, were intended to protect ship surfaces from corrosion due to exposure to the elements. Other paints containing pesticides, such as tributyl tin and organotin, have been used on the hulls of ships to prevent the buildup of sea organisms (e.g., bacteria, protozoa, barnacles, and algae)."
Separate MARAD "ship condition reports" for three of MARAD's ships at Suisun Bay that were cleaned in Richmond and Alamada, California in 2006 "describe them as being badly corroded, their decks covered with paint chips and their holds filling with what was described as oily water" (*45). Oily and bilge water can also be contaminated with hazardous material, according to the EPA's shipbreaking guide (p. 4-1 of *4).
Normal shipping is usually not much of a problem for fouling organisms, except releasing ballast water in ports is a concern and is regulated. It is usually not a problem because the hulls of ships are generally cleaned periodically.
However, fouling organisms are a concern for ships to be scrapped because the hulls of some may not have been cleaned for a very long time. For example, some of the ships in MARAD's fleet in California that could be brought to Oregon to scrap have not been cleaned in decades.
Gary Whitney's company towed two MARAD ships from Suisun Bay to Brownsville, Texas for shipbreaking (*22). Whitney indicated that MARAD's ships "have from one to four inches of marine growth on their hulls, with strands of grass as long as two feet" (*22).
More about the fouling of ships at Suisun Bay was revealed by the Contra Costa Times (a newspaper in the County near MARAD's ships in Suisun Bay) in September 2006 (*45) (boldface added):
"Sheets of decayed metals, hull coatings and lead paint more than one-third of an inch thick peeled off two obsolete U.S. Maritime Administration ships when marine growth was scrubbed from their hulls at the Port of Richmond last month, according to a report prepared for the federal government.
"The toxic material was left in San Francisco Bay, much of it adhered to thick seaweed and barnacles that accumulated on the ships for more than 35 years as they were anchored in the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet near Benicia.
"When the cleaning was done in early August, a Maritime Administration spokeswoman said only organic materials would be left in the water. But the report prepared for the administration states, 'marine growth across the flat bottom of the hull appeared to peel away in pieces up to several square feet at a time adhered to sections of corroded steel flakes. ... Corroded metal and old flakes ... appeared to maintain a consistent maximum thickness of approximately .375 (of an) inch. These flakes seemed to be made up of tightly bound marine fouling over brittle advanced corrosion wastage and aged hull coating,' reads the report prepared by employees of the company that did the work, Underwater Resources Inc. of San Francisco. The Times obtained the document from the Coast Guard under the federal Freedom of Information Act after it obtained the document from the Maritime Administration.
"The Coast Guard also released photographs of the ships, showing badly rusted hulls with paint chipping away in large sections and thick grasses visible below the waterline. The photos also show the large chips of decayed metals described in the report."
Ian Davidson of the Aquatic Bioinvasion Research and Policy Institute (which is a joint initiative between Portland State University and the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center [*23]), James T. Carlton (a biology professor at Williams College in Massachusetts who regularly conducts research in Oregon and is one of the world's leading experts on the movement of exotic species on ship hulls), and Stephen Phillips of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission recommend that the best alternative to prevent introducing invasive species from MARAD's ships at Suisun Bay to Oregon would be to clean the hulls of ships before they come to Oregon (*11, *22, *49).
Perhaps in response to the controversy during the Newport shipbreaking debate about fouling organisms and invasive species on MARAD vessels, the U.S. Coast Guard began requiring a cleaning and testing program in mid-2006 (*49). The Contra Costa Times wrote (*44) (boldface added):
"Under a Coast Guard order issued June 27, ships leaving the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet for scrapping yards in Texas have to be cleaned of organic growth on their hulls below water so those organisms aren't spread to waters where they are not native. Some of the ships haven't been maintained or cleaned in decades and there are concerns that even a gentle scrubbing of their hulls could result in structural damage, or paint and other contaminates falling into the water."
However, the cleaning of several ships in the San Francisco Bay area has become problematic. California water regulators concluded that cleaning the hulls of MARAD's ships at Suisun Bay caused pollution because when the hulls were cleaned toxic metals such as copper, zinc, and lead paint were deposited in the water and not cleaned up (*45, *47, *50). In response to this controversy, MARAD did not have the hulls of the two vessels transported from Suisun Bay in January 2007 cleaned in the San Francisco Bay area (*47, *48). It is not known where they were cleaned because MARAD has refused to release the information (*47, *48).
There is concern that cleaning the ships in the San Francisco Bay area may not only cause pollution there, but may also cause hull thinning so that ships may sink (*44,*45, *47, *48). The Contra Costa Times has been lobbying for the Coast Guard to drop the requirement to clean ship hulls in editorials in November 2006 (*46) and February 2007 (*48).
MARAD is also presumably lobbying to have the Coast Guard's hull cleaning order rescinded because it would be easier for MARAD.
Accordingly, it is appropriate for the State of Oregon to address concerns about invasive species that may be brought in on ships with hulls that have not been cleaned for a long time.
Go to Table of Contents for Senate Bills 432 and 643 or to Proposed Shipbreaking (Ship Recycling) of U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) or Navy Ships in Oregon or Washington
The 28 January 2006 Oregonian editorial points out that in-water shipbreakers such as Bay Bridge Enterprises want to locate in Oregon because of looser environmental regulations here (*27):
"Bay Bridge told Newport leaders the work can't be done profitably in California because of higher labor and real estate costs there. That was a smokescreen. The huge expense of towing ships to Oregon would gobble up most of any savings on labor and land. What Bay Bridge really seeks to escape is tighter environmental regulation. California officials say that state's regulators would be highly unlikely to allow any company to break up old ships -- permeated with hazardous materials -- in the manner Bay Bridge proposes doing in Oregon, with vessels still sitting in the water for much of the dismantling. California would almost certainly insist the work be done in dry-dock, or something close to that higher level of environmental safety. In Oregon, the rules are looser. A Department of Environmental Quality spokesman said the state's foremost requirement for the Bay Bridge operation will be a stormwater runoff permit, and the company should have no trouble getting one."
The 11 February 2006 Oregonian editorial noted (*31):
"Officials in the California Environmental Protection Agency say it's extremely unlikely regulators in that state would permit Bay Bridge to dismantle ships that way [in water] in San Francisco. Hence the idea of towing vessels 500-plus miles to Oregon, where environmental rules on shipbreaking are more relaxed, if not virtually absent."
Further, the Contra Costa Times reported that "industry experts" had said ship scrapping in California is more costly than in Texas because of higher labor costs and "more stringent environmental regulations" (*44).
After Bay Bridge Enterprises was turned down by the Port of Newport, Gov. Kulongoski was reported on 10 February 2006 to have indicated that shipbreaking should be done in Oregon dry docks because of environmental concerns (*21). It was stated about the Governor (*21):
" 'He's not interested in having this company come if it is (working) in the water,' said Anna Richter Taylor, a spokeswoman for the governor. 'The federal government is the one who benefits from this. If Bay Bridge wants to work with the federal government to locate a dry-dock in Oregon, then let's talk.' "
On 3 April 2006, the Oregon DEQ wrote (*38):
"Concerns were raised earlier this year when a ship breaking facility was proposed for the Port of Newport. After several environmental issues were raised, Governor Kulongoski stated that any ship breaking operations locating in Oregon would have to ensure the level of environmental protection offered by a dry dock operation. DEQ will examine any proposed operation to ensure that it would offer equal or better environmental protection than a dry dock."
Senate Bill 432 is needed because Governor Kulongoski's directive to do shipbreaking in dry docks may not hold up in court (*58). Additionally, the Governor's directive or can be changed with a new Governor or after the lessons learned from the experience with Bay Bridge Enterprises are forgotten. The Governor's directive also does not seem to include preventing the introduction of hazardous materials or fouling organisms into Oregon waters like Senate Bill 432 could.
It would be preferable to codify these restrictions by passing Senate Bill 432, so that this is clear to prospective shipbreaking businesses from the start, which would benefit them, too.
Go to Table of Contents for Senate Bills 432 and 643 or to Proposed Shipbreaking (Ship Recycling) of U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) or Navy Ships in Oregon or Washington
Shipbreaking is necessary, but it also needs to be done right. Dismantling ships in dry docks is the best way to contain hazardous materials that could be released while a ship is scrapped.
There are two types of dry docks: graving and floating (which are defined in Senate Bill 432: dry dock; also see Wikipedia: Drydock).
Ships have been scrapped in dry docks before. Baltimore Marine Industries (which after bankruptcy became North American Ship Recycling [*6, *42]) in Baltimore, Maryland, and Metro Machine in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania have scrapped U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) or U. S. Navy ships in dry docks (*39, p. 20 of *43). Ship Dismantlement and Recycling Joint Venture also scrapped Navy ships at a dry dock in the Hunters Point dry dock near San Francisco until late 2001 (p. 10 of *40). Gary Whitney of Allied Defense Recycling LLC proposes to scrap MARAD ships in dry docks at the former Naval base at Mare Island near Suisun Bay (*51).
The only way to contain hazardous wastes totally during shipbreaking is to do it in dry docks. If shipbreaking is done in water at a pier or in a slip, then hazardous materials can go into the water and be washed away (e.g., see Photos of In-water Shipbreaking). In dry docks, contaminants that fall outside of a ship can be monitored as well as contained.
Alan Jones with Cascade General, a shipbuilding yard in Portland that also has done shipbreaking in a dry dock (*14, *55), stated in December 2005 about shipbreaking (*56):
"You need a 100 percent contained environment or else paint and metal goes into the water or soil. You have to have a dry dock."
Reasons why dry docks are better than in-water shipbreaking at a pier or dismantling slip:
1) DRY DOCKS CAN CONTAIN LOOSE EXTERIOR PAINT. At a pier or in a slip, paint chips on the exterior of the hull and above the waterline can flake off vessels into the water and cause contamination while a ship is moored and dismantled (index.htm#paint-chips-water). In a dry dock, paint that flakes off would be contained. The Coast Guard currently requires the hull exterior for MARAD's ships from Suisun Bay to be cleaned up to the waterline (see Potential Introduction of Fouling Organisms), so loose paint above the waterline can flake off.
2) DRY DOCKS CAN CONTAIN OIL SPILLS. Booms to contain oil spills or leaks are not necessary while scrapping a ship in a dry dock but would be needed around a ship being scrapped at a pier or in a slip (e.g., see Image 1 and Image 4). The EPA's guide for shipbreaking states (p. A-4 in *4):
"The U.S. Coast Guard requires booms around the ship to help contain any spills."
Note that it is not stated that booms will contain spills, only that they would "help" contain spills.
Although there is a Coast Guard requirement for a boom, in-water shipbreakers do not always have one deployed, so there is a risk of an uncontained oil spill for in-water shipbreaking. For instance, during the Virginia DEQ's November 2005 inspection (*3), Bay Bridge Enterprises in Virginia had a boom in their drag slip, but not in their main shipbreaking slip.
The effectiveness of booms used for in-water shipbreaking could be compromised by drifting debris, waves, winds, and/or tides. On 12 January 2006, I saw and photographed debris including logs, wood pallets, and dock remnants along the shore of Bay Bridge's proposed shipbreaking site at Yaquina Bay. Waves generated by winds blowing across the large embayment to the south of the site could go over booms, and the booms may also be compromised by boat wakes (i.e., the proposed site was beside the channel and would be subject to boat wakes). Winds may also effect the boom if much of the boom's surface is exposed, so it may act as a sail in winds of 60 mph or more that have occurred during October-March and 50 mph winds that have occurred in June 2000 at the Hatfield Marine Science Center (*16).
Further, strong tidal currents may affect booms placed around ships near the channel. In contrast to Bay Bridge's Virginia site where the Mean Tidal Range or average difference between high and low tides is only 2.8 ft, the Mean Tidal Range at Yaquina Bay's Hatfield Marine Science Center is 6.4 ft (*17). Further, the difference during Portsmouth's "spring" tides is only 3.3 feet, compared to a difference of 8.3 ft between Mean Lower Low Water and Mean Higher High Water at Yaquina Bay (*17). The greater tidal range at Yaquina Bay [and at many other locations in the Pacific Northwest] can lead to very strong tidal currents. For example, it is predicted that tide heights will change 10-12 ft in less than 8 hours on at least one day every month in 2006 at the Hatfield Marine Science Center (*18).
A boom may be effective in trapping oil in a protected slip with one relatively narrow end and little tidal range like in Virginia, but it is questionable how effective a boom would be for shipbreaking at a pier or in a slip exposed to storms like the site along the open channel and in an open cove that Bay Bridge Enterprises wanted to use at Yaquina Bay (index.htm#bbe-water). During Oregon coastal storms, a combination of debris, winds, waves, and tidal currents could shift a boom and waves could overtop it (index.htm#boom-oil).
A boom may also catch loose material that floats but would not catch debris for a ship being dismantled that sinks.
3) DRY DOCKS CAN CONTAIN CONTAMINANTS FROM CUTTING A SHIP. During shipbreaking in water at a pier or slip, the superstructure (i.e., the part of the ship above the main deck) is customarily removed, the decks below the main deck can also be removed, the hull can be cut, and the part of the bow removed while the ship is in water (e.g., see Images 1-7). In Oregon, coastal winds that are strong during storms (e.g., 60 mph or more winds have occurred during October-March and 50 mph winds have occurred in June 2000 at the Hatfield Marine Science Center in Newport [*16]) could blow loose hazardous materials into the water after the decks or part of the hull or bow are removed.
Cutting the hull while the ship is in water could also result in metal slag from the cutting torches going into the water (index.htm#cutting-hull). Chemicals in the metal scrap or slag could then leach into the water or sediments as noted in the EPA's guide for shipbreaking (p. 7-4 of *4).
Further, particulates will also be produced during torch cutting of a ship during scrapping. The EPA's guide to shipbreaking writes (p. 7-4 of *4):
"Specifically, torch cutting will generate large amounts of fumes and some or all of the following materials as particulates: manganese, nickel, chromium, iron, aluminum, asbestos, and lead."If the in-water shipbreaking site is exposed to winds as are common along the Oregon Coast, then those particulates could be blown overboard and fall into the water.
If the vessel is being dismantled in a dry dock, these materials would much more likely be contained.
4) DRY DOCKS HAVE CONTAINMENT AROUND A SHIP. In a dry dock, all sides of a vessel are easy to access and are contained, so there is less chance of accidents of material falling or blowing off the side of a vessel. At a pier or slip, cranes move materials over water (e.g., see Image 1 and Image 5), so loose material can drop or be blown into the water.
5) DRY DOCKS CAN BETTER CONTAIN BILGE OR CONTAMINATED WASTEWATER. Bilge water can be contaminated and be of concern. For example, the EPA wrote in their shipbreaking guide (p. 4-1 of *4) [boldface added]:
"Typically, government-owned ships received for scrapping have minimal bilge water onboard. Bilge water consists of stagnant, dirty water and other liquids, such as condensed steam, and valve and piping leaks, that are allowed to drain to the lowest inner part of a ship's hull (i.e., the bilge). Bilge water may also be found in onboard holding tanks, often referred to as oily waste holding tanks or slop tanks. Bilge water originates from many sources both when a ship is in operation and when a ship is being scrapped. It may contain pollutants, such as oil and grease, inorganic salts, and metals (e.g., arsenic, copper, chromium, lead, and mercury). When a ship is in operation, bilge water may originate from leaks and spills, steam condensate, and boiler blowdown. This drainage may include small quantities of oils, fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluid, antifreeze, solvents, and cleaning chemicals. During ship scrapping, bilge water is created through the accumulation of rain water (because the decks are open) and the collection of water from fire lines that leak, are left open or are used to wet down compartments. Additional bilge water may be generated during asbestos removal and metal cutting activities."
Since it regularly rains in Oregon and it is predictable that strong winds would blow away tarps or other temporary shelter placed over a ship to keep rain out, the creation of contaminated bilge water by rainfall during ship scrapping is of concern. This would not be as big a problem for in-water shipbreaking at drier areas such as Texas.
For shipbreaking in a dry dock, contaminated water would be contained within the dry dock. But for in-water shipbreaking, contaminated water could be spilled into the surrounding estuary or river when it is pumped from the ship to land. According to Bay Bridge's "Fact Sheet" for the Port of Newport (*10), wastewater (which would include bilge water) will "be pumped into tanks onshore and transported out of the area." Where will the wastewater go? To a site where it will be known as possibly contaminated and appropriately treated?
6) DRY DOCKS CAN BETTER CONTAIN WATER DURING FIRE-FIGHTING. Fires are a risk during shipbreaking. The EPA's guide to shipbreaking (p. 7-4 of *4) notes that one source of fires is the use of cutting torches to cut apart a ship. Because ships often contain oil or fuel when they arrive for shipbreaking, cutting torches could cause a fire. While one ship was being scrapped in Baltimore in 1996, the Baltimore Fire Department was called out for a fire at least seven times (*8). In October 2006, there was also a two-alarm fire at a ship being dismantled by Bay Bridge Enterprises in Virginia (*52).
A fire during shipbreaking lasted 36 hours at Cascade General in Portland and required a million gallons of water to put out (*14, *20). Fortunately, the vessel was in a dry dock, so the water that would be contaminated by paint chips and other loose debris or liquids could be contained and was treated by Cascade General's water treatment facility (*14, *20).
For fires on a ship being scrapped at a pier or in a slip, the water used to put out a fire could loosen hazardous materials and flush them overboard. Fire-fighting water could also create bilge water as it sinks to the bottom of the hull that would become contaminated. Again, this wastewater would be better contained in a dry dock than if it has to be pumped over water to land.
7) DRY DOCKS DO NOT HAVE MACHINERY GOING INTO WATER DURING SHIPBREAKING. In their drag slip in Virginia, Bay Bridge used a heavy vehicle on tracks to go into the estuary while dragging a ship onshore (see Image 6). Such a vehicle could introduce upland contamination into an estuary or river, would stir up sediments, and leaks of fluids from the vehicle could contaminate the water. In a dry dock, it would not be necessary to operate a bulldozer or tracked vehicle in an estuary or river to pull a vessel up on land.
Go to Table of Contents for Senate Bills 432 and 643 or to Proposed Shipbreaking (Ship Recycling) of U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) or Navy Ships in Oregon or Washington
For other photos of in-water shipbreaking at Bay Bridge Enterprises, see s-pics-1.htm and Virginia DEQ reconnaissance reports; at other sites, see s-site-1.htm.
Image 1 (below). Photo of the former helicopter carrier, USS Iwo Jima, being scrapped at International Shipbreaking Limited in Brownsville, Texas (*7). Note that the superstructure has been removed while the ship is in water (Dry Dock #3).
While scrap is removed from the ship with cranes, debris could fall into the water (Dry Dock #4). During Oregon storms, debris could also blow off a ship being scrapped at a pier or in a slip into the water.
Also note the small red boom at the open end of the slip. Booms can catch some floating materials such as oil but would lose effectiveness during Oregon storms, winds, waves, and tides (Dry Dock #2).
Image 2 (below). Cover photo of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (2000) "A Guide for Ship Scrappers: Tips for Regulatory Compliance" (*4). Parts of the bow and hull have been cut while the ship is in-water.
Cutting can introduce contaminants into the water (Dry Dock #3). In Oregon, debris could also be blown from inside such a ship into the water during storms.
Image 3 (below). "Workers cut away sections of the hull of a ship for scrap metal" at a shipbreaking yard in Brownsville, Texas, in 2005 (*5).
Note that the hull was cut while the ship was in-water; doing so can introduce metal slag into the water that can cause contamination (Dry Dock #3).
Image 4 (below). Boom behind ship in the main in-water shipbreaking slip at Bay Bridge Enterprises in Chesapeake, Virginia on the Elizabeth River. This photo was taken by the Virginia DEQ and is in their September 2005 reconnaissance inspection report (*2).
The effectiveness of such a boom for shipbreaking at a pier or slip in Oregon could be compromised by storms, tides, drifting debris, and waves (Dry Dock #2).
Image 5a and 5b (below). Part of hull of Shirley Lykes was removed by Bay Bridge Enterprises while it was in water. These photos were taken by the Virginia DEQ and are in their May 2005 reconnaissance inspection report (*1). The left photo shows that both sides of part of the hull have been removed, and the right photo shows part of one side has been removed while the Shirley Lykes is still in water.
Image 6 shows that the bow of another ship, Sunbird, was removed in water, and Photo 2 in the November 2005 Virginia DEQ reconnaissance report (*3) shows that part of the hull of a third ship, Mizar, was cut while in water, so Bay Bridge Enterprises cut the hulls of several ships while they were in water. While the hull was cut with torches, slag could go into the water (Dry Dock #3).
In Oregon, debris from inside a vessel being dismantled at a pier or in a slip could be blown out into an estuary or river during storms after the hull is cut.
Image 6 (below). Tracked vehicle in Bay Bridge's drag slip for in-water shipbreaking of the Sunbird. This photo was taken by the Virginia DEQ and is in their November 2005 reconnaissance inspection report (*3). See (s-pics-1.htm#image-5b) for an enlargement that better shows that the some of the decks below the main deck and the bow of the Sunbird had been removed while it still was in water (Dry Dock #3).
Cutting the bow off in water could introduce hazardous materials from inside the hull into the water, especially during Oregon storms.
Also note the tracked, heavy vehicle in the water and the dirt edge on the left side of the drag slip. Operating a tracked vehicle in water of an estuary or river at a shipbreaking site may contaminate the estuary or river (Dry Dock #7).
Image 7 (below). Shipbreaking of Sunbird by Bay Bridge Enterprises in an in-water slip in 2006 from the Wall Street Journal (*57). Note that parts of the ship below the main deck have been removed while it is water (Dry Dock #3).
Rainfall or water used to put out a fire in the Pacific Northwest would create bilge water in such an opened ship that could become contaminated as it sinks to the bottom of the ship (Dry Dock #5 and Dry Dock #6).
Go to Table of Contents for Senate Bills 432 and 643 or to Proposed Shipbreaking (Ship Recycling) of U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) or Navy Ships in Oregon or Washington
These articles are listed chronologically. There may be additional articles about SB 432 that I am not aware of.
1) Barnard, Jeff. 2007. Worried about Environment, Ore. Considers Rules on Shipbreaking. Feb. 11, Associated Press. This article appeared on Feb. 11-12 on the Internet: Feb. 11 KGW-TV Channel 8 (Portland TV station) ("Worried about Environment, Ore. Considers Rules on Shipbreaking"; KGW's item is also at Basel Action Network web site), Feb. 11 Salem Statesman-Journal ["Worried about Environment, Ore. Considers Rules on Shipbreaking"], Feb. 11 OregonLive ("Worried about Environment, Ore. Considers Rules on Shipbreaking"), Feb. 12 Contra Costa Times near San Francisco ["Oregon May Mandate Onshore Shipbreaking. Dry Docks Keep Contaminants from Infiltrating Local Waters"], Feb. 12 Coos Bay World ["Shipbreaking Bill Aimed at Addressing Environmental Concerns"], and on p. B6 of the Feb. 12 Oregonian ("Bill Pushes 'Dry' Shipbreaking to Protect Coast Environment").
2) Anonymous. 2007a. Editorial: Coastal Towns Are Prey to Shipbreakers. Feb. 13, The Daily Astorian. Excerpts:
"Derelict ships are a burden which the federal government won't reckon with. Thus, communities in coastal states are presented with the stark reality of this dangerous industry.
"Astoria has been there. On two occasions over the past 10 years, companies have proposed to dismantle ships on the Astoria waterfront. In one proposal, an aircraft carrier would have been torn apart at Port of Astoria docks, near the heart of town.
...
"There should be a federal policy and sealed facilities for shipbreaking. Because there is no such facility or plan, shipbreakers wander the coastal states looking for ports that would take on the risk in return for the revenue.
...
"The bill to tighten shipbreaking comes from Oregon legislators representing Astoria and Coos Bay. State Sen. Betsy Johnson and Rep. Joanne Verger of Coos Bay have submitted a bill that would require shipbreaking be done in fully contained dry docks.
"The Johnson-Verger Bill deserves urgent consideration. By passing this legislation, Oregon would prod Congress to set some national standards and build a facility."
3) Anonymous. 2007b. Editorial: U.S. Handling of Old Ships is Shameful. Feb. 15, Coos Bay World. Excerpts:
"Oregon should not allow shipbreaking, ship recycling, or whatever you want to call it, unless it's done in fully contained dry-dock facilities. Sen. Joanne Verger, D-Coos Bay, says it best: "It's simply a matter of protecting our waters."
"But even that legislation may not go far enough.
...
"Last year's proposal by a former resident to build a special graving dock for ship recycling on the Coos Bay's North Spit was laudable for the responsible approach to the issue. But, such a facility couldn't be competitive with primitive facilities in Texas that federal officials praise.
"That's a travesty.
...
"Don't misunderstand. Recycling of these former military ships must be done. But it should be done where there's the least risk for disaster.
...
"Sen. Verger and Sen. Betsy Johnson, D-Scappoose, ought to be congratulated for listening to Oregonians and writing this legislation to protect our waters. But now, Oregonians and Americans should speak up to federal lawmakers. It's hypocrisy to spend billions of dollars a week on wars overseas and not adequately fund nor mandate the timely and environmentally responsible disposal of former military ships at home."
4) Dillman, Terry. 2007. Public Hearing to Focus on Proposed Shipbreaking Bill. P. A1 in Feb. 28 Newport News-Times.
5) Anonymous. 2007c. Public Hearing to Focus on Proposed Shipbreaking Bill. P. A3 in March 2 Newport News-Times.
6) Anonymous. 2007d. Public Hearing. P. B4 in March 2 Portland Oregonian. [This announcement was on the Editorial page. The Oregonian erred--it is Senate Bill 432 not 438 as in their announcement: "The first legislative hearing on Senate Bill 438, requiring shipbreaking to be done in dry dock in Oregon, is scheduled for noon today in Lincoln City at City Hall, 801 S.W. Highway 101."]
7) Anonymous. 2007e. Editorial: Forcing Shipbreaking High and Dry. P. B4 in March 2 Portland Oregonian. [The Oregonian erred--it is Senate Bill 432 not 438 as in their editorial.] Excerpts:
"Oregon came uncomfortably close last year to becoming the only West Coast state allowing hazardous old ships to be dismantled as they sit in the water. ... Gov. Ted Kulongoski put the final kibosh on the company's Oregon site search by declaring he would oppose any shipbreaking except that done out of the water in a contained dry dock. The governor's bold words were welcome at the time, but he might have had trouble backing them up in court. Oregon has no law requiring dry docks for such work, but now two state senators are pushing a bill that would do exactly that. ... The Verger-Johnson bill would make Oregon the first state in the nation to specifically require that shipbreaking be done in dry dock, widely considered the environmentally safest way to scrap old ships. They are permeated with hazardous materials, toxic chemicals and exotic species. The only way to guarantee this pollution stays contained is by getting the vessels out of the water when they're being dismantled. ... It's good to know, however, that if the Verger-Johnson bill passes, Oregon's coastal waters and navigable rivers won't become the Pakistan of America's West Coast."
8) Tobias, Lori. 2007. Shipbreaking Bill Passes First Test. Coastal Jobs - A Legislative Committee Votes Unanimously to Send the Proposal to the Senate Floor. P. E1 in March 3 Portland Oregonian.
9) Anonymous. 2007f. Committee Passes Bill Limiting Shipbreaking to Dry Dock Only. March 7 Coos Bay World.
10) Evans, Jason. 2007. Committee Approves Senate Bill 432 During Session in Lincoln City. P. A1 and A2 in March 9 Newport News-Times.
11) Anonymous. 2007g. Editorial: Regulate Ship-breaking. P. A14 in March 9 Eugene Register-Guard. [The Register-Guard erred--it is Senate Bill 432 not 438 as in their editorial.] Excerpts:
"Sooner or later, the federal government will have to deal with the growing problem of how to dispose of this nation's growing fleet of obsolete ships. Until then, Oregon and other coastal states will be forced to establish their own laws and regulations to deal with ship-breaking companies that offer to locate in job-hungry port communities willing to overlook the environmental risks in exchange for good-paying jobs.
"The Legislature's Joint Emergency Preparedness and Ocean Policy Committee last week unanimously approved a bill that would require that companies break up ships only in contained dry docks. The bill now goes to the Senate floor, where it should be approved and then sent to the House for swift passage.
"... Eventually, Congress should establish national standards and, perhaps, even designate federal ship-breaking facilities on each coast. Until then, the Oregon Legislature should approve SB 438 [SB 432] to protect the state's coastal waters."
12) Card, Steve. 2007. Editorial: Shipbreaking Bill Is Good Policy for Oregon. P. A6 in March 14 Newport-News-Times. An excerpt:
"A bill introduced into the Oregon Legislature that would limit shipbreaking operations to dry dock is good policy for Oregon and its environment.
...
"While we don't always believe another layer of government bureaucracy is the answer, we do support SB 432 and the added protection it gives to Oregon's environment. The possible risk of long-term harm to the ecosystem is simply too great, and the potential cost to taxpayers for cleaning up a huge mess after the fact is just not worth the economic gains on the front end.
"This bill make exceptions for dismantling boats that are less than 200 tons. It also makes allowances for shipwrecks, such as the remains of the New Carissa near Coos Bay. That's important for an area like Lincoln County, which sees boats run aground on an all-too-frequent basis. We urge members of the Senate and the House to support this bill and ask Gov. Kulongoski to sign it into law. We must ensure that the natural beauty of the coast we enjoy today is preserved for the generations to come."
13) Bryan, Mark. 2007. Letter from the Publisher: The Loss of Local Input. P. A6 in March 14 Newport News-Times. While the editorial board of the News-Times favors Senate Bill 432, the publisher is concerned about taking the decision away from local communities; an excerpt:
"This piece is not about whether shipbreaking operations in Yaquina Bay are good or evil, nor is it a question of environment or beauty. It is whether the State of Oregon should insert themselves into any issue where it extinguishes the local decision making process."For a differing viewpoint, see Bayer (2007) and Henrickson and Henrickson (2007).
14) Bayer, Range. 2007. Letter to Editor: Senate Bill 432. P. A10 in March 16 Newport News-Times. Although Bryan (2007) suggested this is a local issue, Bayer notes that it is a State issue. Bayer's letter was submitted on March 12, two days before Bryan's article was published, so it was not written in response to his letter. Bayer's Letter to the Editor:
"Our thanks and appreciation are due to the foresight of our State Senator Joanne Verger, our State Representative Jean Cowan, and six other bipartisan legislators who have written and sponsored Oregon Senate Bill 432.
"This bill allows shipbreaking only in dry dock for large ships in Oregon. Shipbreaking has been an issue in the past year in both Newport and Coos Bay, so setting an Oregon policy for ship scrapping is essential.
"Salvaging obsolete ships is necessary, but it needs to be done right. Otherwise, hazardous materials could contaminate Oregon estuaries or rivers while ships are being dismantled.
"It has been proposed that U.S. Maritime Administration ships currently moored in California be towed to Oregon for scrapping. The hulls of some of these ships have not been cleaned for as many as 35 years. Marine growth on these hulls may include exotic invasive species that could be introduced to Oregon. These invasive species could cause great damage to Oregon estuaries.
"Containing ships in dry docks while they are being dismantled greatly reduces these risks.
"Senate Bill 432 is the right bill at the right time. Hopefully, it will be passed by the Oregon Legislature and signed into law by Governor Kulongoski."
15) Henrickson, Jack and Lorraine. 2007. Letter to Editor: Business Rules. P. A10 in March 16 Newport News-Times. [This is a response to Bryan 2007. An excerpt:
"Mark Bryan's letter seems to bemoan the fact that concerned citizens of Newport were able to protect Yaquina Bay from the very polluting shipbreaking, leading to the Senate Bill 432 which is designed to protect the entire state from such undesirable businesses unless done completely in dry-dock. ... Mr. Bryan's letter is an example of anti-government thinking: no rules for big business. What is wrong about wanting to protect our entire coastal environment? We are proud of the thoughtful local citizens who weren't afraid to stand up for what they believe in and for helping to protect the beautiful state of Oregon."
16) Coady, John. 2007. Letters To The Editor: Beware an Industry that Will Kill Oceans. March 30, Coos Bay World.
17) Associated Press. 2007. Ore. Senate Backs Shipbreaking Ban. April 16, OregonLive.com. [No longer available on 20 August 2007.]
Associated Press. 2007. Shipbreaking Bill Passes Senate. April 17, Eugene Register-Guard. [This is same as that the April 16 OregonLive article, and this may also have been included in other newspapers.]
Excerpt:
"The Oregon Senate unanimously backed a bill Monday [April 16] to require that shipbreaking be done in fully contained dry docks so that no pollutants escape into the water when old ships are dismantled."
18) O'Neill, Patrick. 2007. Senate OKs Bill for Dry-dock Ship Salvaging. P. B6 in April 17 Portland Oregonian. [This includes some material as in April 16 Associated Press on OregonLive (Associated Press 2007), but also includes additional materials.]
19) Anonymous. 2007h. Bill Requiring Dry Docks for Shipbreaking Gains Backing. April 17, Coos Bay World. [This is much the same as Associated Press (2007), but additional comments about the proposal in 2006 to construct dry docks at Coos Bay are added.]
Go to Table of Contents for Senate Bills 432 and 643 or to Proposed Shipbreaking (Ship Recycling) of U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) or Navy Ships in Oregon or Washington
Citizens may improve their communication with government officials by using the following resources:
Learn more about the Oregon Legislative process at Welcome to the Oregon Legislature: How an Idea Becomes a Law.
Go to Table of Contents for Senate Bills 432 and 643 or to Proposed Shipbreaking (Ship Recycling) of U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) or Navy Ships in Oregon or Washington
*1. Virginia Dept. of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 2005. 4 May 2005 Reconnaissance Inspection. This is at http://www.orednet.org/~rbayer/salvage/va-deq-5-4-05.pdf [Also see Virginia Dept. of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) Reconnaissance Inspections of In-water Shipbreaking at Bay Bridge Enterprises LLC during May-November 2005]
*2. Virginia Dept. of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 2005. 8 September 2005 Reconnaissance Inspection. This is at http://www.orednet.org/~rbayer/salvage/va-deq-9-8-05.pdf [Also see Virginia Dept. of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) Reconnaissance Inspections of In-water Shipbreaking at Bay Bridge Enterprises LLC during May-November 2005]
*3. Virginia Dept. of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 2005. 15 November 2005 Reconnaissance Inspection. This is at http://www.orednet.org/~rbayer/salvage/va-deq-11-15-05.pdf [Also see Virginia Dept. of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) Reconnaissance Inspections of In-water Shipbreaking at Bay Bridge Enterprises LLC during May-November 2005]
*4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000. A Guide for Ship Scrappers: Tips for Regulatory Compliance. EPA 315-B-00-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
*5. Harper, Scott. 2005. Dismantling the Ghost Fleet. March 21, The Virginian-Pilot. This was no longer available at the Virginian-Pilot web site on 8 March 2006, but it is at http://www.orednet.org/~rbayer/salvage/footnote-28.htm
*6. Harper, Scott. 2004. 2 More in "Ghost Fleet" Slated for Environmentally Safe Scrap. Sept. 14, The Virginian-Pilot. This is at http://www.ban.org/ban_news/2004/040914_2_more.html
*7. Englund, Will and Gary Cohn. 1997. Scrapping Ships, Sacrificing Men. Dec. 7, Baltimore Sun. This is part of a series on shipbreaking that earned the 1998 Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting (http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1998/investigative-reporting/works/).
*8. Cohn, Gary and Will Englund. 1997. The Curious Captains of a Reckless Industry. Dec. 8, Baltimore Sun. This is part of a series on shipbreaking that earned the 1998 Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting (http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1998/investigative-reporting/works/).
*9. Kimberling, Gail. 2005. Bay Bridge 'Committed to Newport,' CEO Says. Dec. 2 Newport (Oregon) News-Times.
*10. Bay Bridge Ship Salvage Facts. Fact Sheet: Bay Bridge Enterprises, Marine Salvage Recycling Operations at the Port of Newport. 1 Dec. 2005. This was removed from the Port of Newport's web site at http://www.portofnewport.com by 29 Jan. 2006; I had downloaded a copy that is available at http://www.orednet.org/~rbayer/salvage/bbfacts_body.htm.
*11. Gallob, Joel. 2005. Shipbreaking Issues Include Invasive Species, Chemicals. Dec. 7, Newport (Oregon) News-Times.
*12. Howard, Thomas J. 2000. Maritime Administration: Limited Progress In Disposing of Obsolete Vessels. May 24. Statement of Thomas J. Howard, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Maritime and Departmental Programs, U.S. Department of Transportation, Before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives. Report No. MA-2000-097.
*13. Hamner, Elise. 2005. Labor Costs Push the Search for Ship Salvage Site North. Dec. 20, The World (Coos Bay newspaper). See suggestions to access this article for a fee.
*14. Presentation by Alan Sprott and Alan Jones of Cascade General of Portland, Oregon to a public meeting of the MidCoast Watershed Council on 5 January 2006 at the OSU Hatfield Marine Science Center. Carole Cole and Range Bayer independently took notes; in addition, Carol Cole received a copy of their presentation.
*15. Sleeth, Peter. 2006. Ship Scrapper Considers Portland. P. A1 and A11 in Jan. 26 Portland Oregonian. This is available at http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/374432/correction_ship_scrapper_considers_portland_ore/index.html.
*16. Maximum monthly wind gust in miles per hour during 1998-2005 as recorded at the Guin Library weather station at the Oregon State University Hatfield Marine Science Center and compiled from HMSC Weather Summaries at http://hmsc.oregonstate.edu/weather/summaries/index.html.
*17. The Mean Range (i.e., the mean difference between high and low tidal levels) at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard on the Elizabeth River in Virginia is 2.8 ft from "Tidal Station Locations and Ranges: Chesapeake Bay," according to "Tides and Currents," National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/tides06/tab2ec2c.html.
The Mean Range at South Beach at Yaquina Bay is 6.4 ft from "Tidal Station Locations and Ranges: Oregon," according to "Tides and Currents," National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/tides06/tab2wc1b.html#132.
Mean Higher High Water at the South Beach tide station is +8.34 ft above Mean Lower Low Water (0.0 ft)
(http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/station_info.shtml?stn=9435380%20South%20Beach,%20OR), while the mean difference between high and low tidal levels during "spring tides" at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Virginia is only 3.26 ft (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/tides05/tab2ec2c.html).
*18. 2001-2006 Tide Predictions [for South Beach and the OSU Hatfield Marine Science Center] at http://hmsc.oregonstate.edu/weather/tides/tides.html
*19. Sleeth, Peter. 2006. Oregon Assets Lure Shipbreakers: Cheaper Costs for Land and Labor to Scrap a California Fleet are Driving Business and the Government North. Jan. 8, Portland Oregonian. This may be available for a fee through the Archives at http://www.oregonlive.com/search/oregonian/
*20. Gallob, Joel. 2006. Fire a Potential Problem in Ship Breaking. Jan. 20, Newport (Oregon) News-Times.
*21. Sleeth, Peter. 2006. No Welcome, No Shipbreaking. Ghost Fleet - Gov. Ted Kulongoski Says a Virginia Firm Cannot Scrap Old Ships in Oregon Waters, Only Dry-dock. Feb. 10, Portland Oregonian. This may be available for a fee through the Archives at http://www.oregonlive.com/search/oregonian/. Essentially the same article is given with a different title "Kulongoski Says Port Shipbreaking Operation a No Go" with Associated Press as the source by KATU-TV.
*22. Sleeth, Peter. 2005. With Scrap Ships May Come Risky Species: Vessels Anchored for Years Might be Towed to Oregon for Salvage, but No One Knows What's on the Hulls. Dec. 18 Portland Oregonian. This may be available for a fee through the Archives at http://www.oregonlive.com/search/oregonian/.
*23. The Aquatic Bioinvasion Research and Policy Institute (ABRPI), a joint initiative between Portland State University (PSU) and the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC).
*24. Hamner, Elise. 2006. Issues Generate Waves of Interest. Feb. 17, Coos Bay (Oregon) World. See suggestions to access this article for a fee.
*25. Anonymous. 2005. Ship Scrapping Company Seeks to Build Yard in Newport. Dec. 5 Daily Astorian. Available for fee or can search for title in NewsBank archives at http://www.dailyastorian.com/SearchForm_Advanced.asp.
*26. Sleeth, Peter. 2006. State Job Chase Hit Unseen Rocks. In Their Zeal to Recruit a Ship-breaking Firm, Oregon Officials Failed to Anticipate a Public Environmental Outcry. Jan. 29 Portland Oregonian. This may be available for a fee through the Archives at http://www.oregonlive.com/search/oregonian/.
*27. Anonymous. 2006. Editorial: Ship-Scrappers Still Face Tough Sailing. Jan. 28 Portland Oregonian. This may be available for a fee through the Archives at http://www.oregonlive.com/search/oregonian/.
*28. Redden, Jim. 2006. TribTown: Salvage Talks Anger Linnton. Residents Feel Blindsided by PDC's Negotiations with Ship Dismantler. Jan. 31 Portland Tribune.
*29. Mickelson, Carl. 2006. Sitka Report Debunked. Jan. 11 Coos Bay World. See suggestions to access this article for a fee.
*30. Hamner, Elise. 2006. Coos Bay Was Not a 'Viable Site' Without Railroad Access. Jan. 11 Coos Bay World. See suggestions to access this article for a fee.
*31. Anonymous. 2006. Editorial. Only in Dry Dock: The Governor Gets It Right. Feb. 11 Portland Oregonian. This may be available for a fee through the Archives at http://www.oregonlive.com/search/oregonian/.
*32. Gallob, Joel. 2005. Why Not Break the Ships in the Bay Area? Dec. 28 Newport (Oregon) News-Times.
*33. Anonymous. 1999. Crowley Marine Services Completes 15,000-Mile Tow of USS Oriskany. Sept. 15, Crowley Liner Shipping Services.
*34. U. S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1998. Federal Surplus Ships: Government Efforts To Address the Growing Backlog of Ships Awaiting Disposal. Letter Report, 10/22/98, GAO/NSIAD-99-18.
This is also at http://fas.org/man/gao/nsiad-99-018.htm
*35. Baxter, Kevin. 1999. DRMS Aircraft Carrier Offer Gets Scrapped - Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service Has Hard Time Finding Anyone Willing to Bid on Scrap Purchase of USS Oriskany. April 19, American Metal Market.
*36. Stewart, Christopher S. 2004. Ship Breaking: an Upstart Is Revolutionizing the Arcane, Dangerous Business of Boat Recycling. Oct. 1, Fortune Small Business (Vol. 14[8]:71-77). Photos by Nathaniel Welch. Text is at http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/fsb_archive/2004/10/01/8187304/index.htm (index is at http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/fsb_archive/2004/10/01/toc.html). Text and images are also at http://www.usshorne.net/horne/breaking.htm; that web site says the article is from Forbes Magazine, but the page images indicate it is from "FSB," which suggests Fortune Small Business, and some of the page numbers are visible.
*37. Bishop, Jeff. 2006. Proposal on Public Forums to Study the Pros and Cons of Ship Recycling. Statement at February 16, 2006 Meeting of Port's Board of Commissioners by Jeff Bishop, Executive Director, Oregon International Port of Coos Bay.
*38. Fuller, Brian. 2006. Fact Sheet: Ship Breaking Project Proposal for Coos Bay. April 3, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality--Eugene, Regional Environmental Solutions, Western Region. DEQ 06-WR-006.
*39. Boerstling, Robyn. 2004. Transportation Secretary Mineta Announces Baltimore Ship Scrapping Contracts, Says Work Will "Set Stage for a Revival" of Local Transportation Economy. Sept. 13, DOT 170-04. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Office of Public Affairs.
*40. U.S. Maritime Administration. 2002. Report to Congress on the Progress of the Vessel Scrapping Program. June 2002. U. S. Dept. of Transportation, Maritime Administration. This does not appear to be available at MARAD's web site but is at http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/evidence/report_congress_vessel_scrap_2002.pdf
*41. Baxter, Kevin. 2000. Dismissal of Ship Repair Company's Plea Lets Warship Scrapping Get Under Way. March 1, American Metal Market.
*42. Macaluso, Nora. 2003. U.K. Shipbreaking Contract Questioned. With the U.S. Maritime Industry Ailing, Some Are Asking Why a British Scrapyard Was Chosen to Dismantle 13 Aging Vessels. Sept. 8, Special to SunSpot, Baltimore Sun (Maryland).
*43. Hess, Ron, Denis Rushworth, Michael V. Hynes, and John E. Peters. 2001. Disposal Options for Ships. RAND Corporation, Document Number: MR-1377-NAVY. ("This research was conducted for the U.S. Navy within the Acquisition and Technology Policy Center of RAND's National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Commands, and the defense agencies.")
*44. Peele, Thomas. 2006. Pollution Monitoring Surfaces with Cleaning of Obsolete Ships. Water Board Official Concerned Toxic Material Could be Left in Bay. Aug. 11, Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek, Ca.). See http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_km4465/is_200608/ai_n16626500 or search Archives at http://www.contracostatimes.com/archivesearch to see article for a fee.
*45. Peele, Thomas. 2006. Clean Ships, Toxic Bay. Sept. 15, Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek, Ca.). This is at http://www.savesfbay.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=dgKLLSOwEnH&b=1533211&ct=2939945.
*46. Anonymous. 2006. Editorial: End Ship-scraping Rule. Nov. 29, Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek, Ca.). Search Archives at http://www.contracostatimes.com/archivesearch to see article for a fee.
*47. Peele, Thomas. 2007. Cleaning of Vessels Causes Pollution, Prompts Review. Feb. 17, Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek, Ca.). Search Archives at http://www.contracostatimes.com/archivesearch to see article for a fee.
*48. Anonymous. 2007. Editorial: Ship Disposal Dilemma. Feb. 21, Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek, Ca.). Search Archives at http://www.contracostatimes.com/archivesearch to see article for a fee.
*49. Sleeth, Peter. 2006. Outcry Spurs U.S. to Swab Fleet. Shipbreaking - Officials Begin Testing Hulls for Invasive Species after Protests against Scrapping Ships in Yaquina Bay. P. A1 and A4 in July 11, Portland Oregonian. It is available at http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/568222/outcry_spurs_us_to_swab_fleet/index.html.
*50. Peele, Thomas. 2006. State Could Require Permits for Suisun Bay Ship Cleaning: Federal Agency Also May Be Required to Monitor for Pollution. Nov. 27, Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek, Ca.).
*51. Barnard, Jeff. 2007. Worried about Environment, Ore. Considers Rules on Shipbreaking. Feb. 11, Associated Press.
*52. Clayton, Cindy. 2006. Ship Fire at Portlock Traced to Insulation. October 28, The Virginian-Pilot.
*53. U.S. Maritime Administration. 2005. Report to Congress on the Progress of the Vessel Disposal Program. October 2005. U. S. Dept. of Transportation, Maritime Administration.
*54. Vidal, John. 2006. Ghost Ships May Leave Limbo. March 31, The Guardian (England).
*55. Gallob, Joel. 2005. Shipbreaking: Players Based Throughout the United States. Dec. 16, Newport (Oregon) News-Times.
*56. Gallob, Joel. 2005. Winch vs. Dry Dock for Shipbreaking's Heavy Lifting. Dec. 23, Newport (Oregon) News-Times.
*57. Glader, Paul. 2006. With Steel Soaring, A Ghost Fleet Is In High Demand. P. A1 and A11 in Jan. 10 Wall Street Journal. A Google cache of the article without images is at fnote-92.htm; the image of the ship is Image 7.
*58. Anonymous. 2007. Editorial: Forcing Shipbreaking High and Dry. P. B4 in March 2, Portland Oregonian. [The Oregonian erred--it is Senate Bill 432 not 438 as in their editorial. See excerpts of their editorial.]
-----------------------------------
Coos Bay World articles that are no longer available for free are available for $5 per day (not per article). You can access as many as you wish in one day for $5, so you may want to plan your searching to see as many as you can in one day to print or save on your computer. This process is simple, and I last tested it on 16 May 2006.
The process to access articles is:
1) Select the link I have given for an article or enter the web address (URL) for the article. Alternatively, select "Advanced Search Options" for the article title enclosed by quotation marks or for keywords at http://www.theworldlink.com/archives/ to see the abstract of an article and a link to pay for it.
2) If the article is not available for free, you will be routed to a page for selecting a 1 day (24 hour) service for $5 for all articles that you wish to see during that day or a 365 archive access for $39.99. Select 1 day and then fill out the necessary forms and use Visa or MasterCard to pay.
3) Write down your username and password for reference.
4) After successfully submitting your information you will be routed to a page with a receipt to save and a line "To access the article you were looking at, click here." Click the link to see the article that you had originally selected.
5) To see additional articles within your time limit, select other articles that I have given, enter the web address (URL) for the article, or do an Advanced Search for keywords of interest. If you have not disconnected, you will be able to directly access an article. If your connection has been disconnected, then enter your username and password and check "Remember Login" and enter as many articles as possible before disconnecting, so that you do not have to enter your username and password.
Go to Table of Contents for Senate Bills 432 and 643 or to Proposed Shipbreaking (Ship Recycling) of U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) or Navy Ships in Oregon or Washington
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.