Table of Contents for Virginia DEQ Reconnaissance Inspections of Bay Bridge Enterprises LLC during May-November 2005
Introduction
Notes About Some Items of Interest in Virginia DEQ Reconnaissance Inspection Reports
Links to PDF Files of Virginia DEQ's May-November 2005 Reconnaissance Inspections of Bay Bridge Enterprises LLC
Email to and from Virginia DEQ about Their Not Testing Water or Sediments in Slips Used for Shipbreaking by Bay Bridge Enterprises LLC
Footnotes Cited in This File
I had seen that Susan Mackert of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) was listed as being the Virginia DEQ inspector of Bay Bridge Enterprises LLC in Joel Gallob's 2 December 2005 Newport News-Times article (54) and in Elise Hamner's 20 December 2005 Coos Bay World article (81) . Hamner also mentioned another woman in Virginia DEQ (Crystal St. Clair-Canaii, who had only inspected Bay Bridge's indoor operation once), so I was not sure which woman had provided Hamner with the two DEQ photos that were included in two of her articles (80, 81). I emailed Hamner on 3 January 2006 about where she got the photos. She replied on Jan. 4 that she had received the photos from Susan Mackert and gave me her telephone number. I found Mackert's email address through the Virginia state employee directory--it was not at the Virginia DEQ web site.
On Jan. 4, I emailed Susan Mackert, mentioned the two photos in Hamner's articles, asked about what was included in her inspections, and requested any additional photos. On Jan. 10, Mackert emailed me copies of her last four inspections of Bay Bridge. Her reports included the two color photos in Hamner's articles (80, 81) and other color photos.
In the PDF section, I note that the files sizes for each of these four reconnaissance inspection reports are 1.6, 0.4, 0.7, and 0.8 Mb, respectively. Some of the photos are also shown in Photo Images of In-water Shipbreaking at Bay Bridge Enterprises (BBE) in Chesapeake, Virginia on the Elizabeth River.
(Return to Contents of Virginia DEQ Reconnaissance Inspections of Bay Bridge Enterprises or to Contents about a Shipbreaking Facility in Oregon or Washington]
text=text portion of Susan Mackert's reconnaissance inspection report; photo=photo number in Mackert's report
1) Each report was labeled as "Recon Report" and was mailed to Bay Bridge Enterprises' Mike Dunavant as "Re: Reconnaissance Inspection Report." DEQ did not state that these were comprehensive reports or that the quality of water or sediments in slips was tested.
2) The first line in the "General Observations" of each report states the inspection was conducted "to observe the status of Ghost Fleet dismantling at Bay Bridge Enterprises." The July and Sept. inspection reports state that one of Bay Bridge's ships had been "dismantled under the first contract in 2004." [Bay Bridge won the bids to scrap 5 MARAD Ghost ships in Sept. 2003 (4), but scrapping may not have begun until 2004 (see 6)].
3) The inspection dates for her last four Reconnaissance Reports as of 10 January 2006 were: 4 May 2005, 20 July 2005, 8 September 2005, and 15 November 2005. [These inspections were not once or twice a month as Bay Bridge has stated.]
4) No "Inspection Violations" were noted during these inspections. [Bay Bridge has apparently not been cited for environmental violations.]
5) The only "Inspection Recommendations" were given for the May 4 report. Recommendations were to "Improve housekeeping in the area of the 'clean room' to include proper storage of batteries" and to "Provide information on the plan and timeline for repair of the retaining wall."
6) Photographs were taken during each visit and were included with the reconnaissance report. [Some of these photographs are also in Photos of Shipbreaking at Bay Bridge Enterprises.]
7) Mackert's May 4 and July 20 reports indicate that the property owner of the Bay Bridge site is Sims Metal, not Bay Bridge Enterprises.
8) For the main slip, a boom was noted as being in place on May 4 (text and photo 4) and Sept. 8 (text and photo 5 [also see BBE Image-3]). During the Nov. 15 inspection, the boom that was "normally located behind the slip had temporarily been removed by Sims Metal to allow for the arrival of their barge"; the barge was not associated with Bay Bridge. It is not stated if a boom was in place during the July 20 inspection.
9) For the drag slip, a boom was not needed on May 4, as the drag slip was empty (text and photo 12 [also see BBE Image 4]). A ship was in the drag slip on July 20, but it is not reported if a boom was present. On Sept. 8, it is not noted if there was a ship or a boom in the drag slip. On Nov. 15, "a boom was in place behind the drag slip."
10) The report of the Sept. 8 inspection states that one MARAD ship had arrived at Bay Bridge "with 170,000 gallons of diesel fuel on board" that would be removed at Bay Bridge.
11) On May 4, a retaining wall along the main slip was noted as "continuing to give way" (text and photos 9-11), and the Bay Bridge representative (Rebecca Kunz) indicated that repair is to be done by the property owner, Sims Metal. The word "continuing" suggests that problems with the retaining wall had been noted earlier. On July 20, the retaining wall "has finally given way" (text and photo 3); the property owner Sims Metal is "ultimately responsible" for the repair but has "several barges located in the slip" that Sims is to dismantle and when they have been removed, then repairs of the retaining wall could begin (text). On Sept. 8, work on the retaining wall "has not yet begun" (text and photo 6). The retaining wall is not mentioned in the Nov. 15 inspection report.
12) The May 4 report indicates that cutting of part of the hull of the Shirley Lykes occurred while it was in a Bay Bridge slip (text and photos 1 [BBE Image 6a], 3 [BBE Image 6b], 5-7 [BBE Images 7a, 7b, and 7c and enlargement of 5 in BBE Image 8]). The May 4 report states: "A double control system has been implemented when cutting is taking place. A crane lifts a 'float' to sit directly under the area where cutting is being performed to catch slag before entering State waters (photos 5 - 6). An additional float is placed in the water in the same area to catch any slag that is not caught by the first float (photo 7)."
13) A tracked, heavy vehicle is in the water of the drag slip on Nov. 15 (photo 3). [See BBE Image 5a and especially enlargement in BBE Image 5b.]
14) At least sometimes, cranes operate on dirt or unpaved areas (see photos 5-7 for May 4 inspection). [Also see [BBE Images 7a, 7b, and 7c and enlargement of 5 in BBE Image 8.]
15) The onshore area underneath metal scrap sometimes appears to be dirt or unpaved (photo 1 on Sept. 8 [see BBE Image 9] and photo 8 on Nov. 15 [see BBE Image 10]).
16) The area near Bay Bridge's shipbreaking is vegetated, dirt, sand, or unpaved (May 4: photos 1, 5-6, 8-12. July 20: photos: 1-3. Sept. 8: photo 1 and 6. Nov. 15: photos 3-4, 7-8.) (Some of these photos are also in BBE Image 4, BBE Image 5, BBE Image 6, BBE Image 7, BBE Image 8, BBE Image 9, BBE Image 10.]
(Return to Contents of Virginia DEQ Reconnaissance Inspections of Bay Bridge Enterprises or to Contents about a Shipbreaking Facility in Oregon or Washington]
In Adobe Reader, use the Zoom feature to enlarge photos to 200% or more to see details that are not very visible at 100%. Some of the photos are also shown in Photo Images of In-water Shipbreaking at Bay Bridge Enterprises (BBE) in Chesapeake, Virginia on the Elizabeth River--I used screen capture software to copy these images from the PDF files below.
Click to Go To Adobe and Download Free Adobe Reader.
Virginia DEQ 4 May 2005 Reconnaissance Inspection, 1.6 Mb
Virginia DEQ 20 July 2005 Reconnaissance Inspection, 0.4 Mb
Virginia DEQ 8 September 2005 Reconnaissance Inspection, 0.7 Mb
Virginia DEQ 15 November 2005 Reconnaissance Inspection, 0.8 Mb
(Return to Contents of Virginia DEQ Reconnaissance Inspections of Bay Bridge Enterprises or to Contents about a Shipbreaking Facility in Oregon or Washington]
=========================================
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 11:27:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Range Bayer rbayer@orednet.org
To: "Mackert,Susan" sdmackert@deq.virginia.gov
Cc: Range Bayer rbayer@orednet.org
Subject: RE: Bay Bridge Part 1
Dear Susan:
Thank you very much for sending the reports! I was able to download them and to open them up in Word successfully.
In scanning through the reports, I just want to be absolutely, 100% sure. In your inspections, you inspected the site, but did you test water or sediment quality in the slips where Bay Bridge conducted shipbreaking?
Again, thank you very much.
Yours,
Richard Bayer
========================================================
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 14:36:18 -0500
From: "Mackert,Susan" sdmackert@deq.virginia.gov
To: Range Bayer rbayer@orednet.org
Subject: RE: Bay Bridge Part 1
Hi Richard,
I myself have not sampled water or sediments at Bay Bridge during any of my inspections. However, the agency does conduct water quality monitoring of the EIizabeth River and I believe Roger will be responding to with more details of this program.
Thanks,
Susan
Susan Mackert
Environmental Specialist II
DEQ - Tidewater Regional Office
5636 Southern Boulevard
Virginia Beach, VA 23462
(757) 518-2180 / 2003(fax)
sdmackert@deq.virginia.gov
=============================================================
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 23:14:06 -0800
To: Roger Everton rkeverton@deq.virginia.gov
Subject: Sediments & Water Quality at Bay Bridge Enterprises in Chesapeake, VA
Roger Everton rkeverton@deq.virginia.gov, 757-518-2150
Water Compliance Manager
Tidewater Regional Office
Virginia DEQ
Dear Mr. Everton:
Re: sediment or water quality in slips used for shipbreaking at Bay Bridge Enterprises LLC, 4300 Buell St., Chesapeake, VA 23324.
Bay Bridge Enterprises scraps vessels floating in slips at their site. Metal fragments, other debris, and flaking paint from these ships can be deposited on the bottom and in the sediments of these slips as a vessel is being scrapped.
Has the Virginia DEQ checked the bottom of these slips where vessels are scrapped or the sediments of these slips for contamination? Has the water quality in these slips been monitored? Has the macrobenthic community in these slips been monitored for water quality conditions? Have there been any reports of bilgewater from these vessels being discharged into these slips? If so, what were the results of these monitoring efforts?
Has the Virginia DEQ requested Bay Bridge to improve water or sediment quality in these slips? If so, when was this done?
Are any reports or communications available about contamination in these slips or requests to Bay Bridge to remove the contamination?
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Yours,
Richard Bayer
=====================================================
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 12:12:48 -0500
From: "Everton,Roger" rkeverton@deq.virginia.gov
Subject: RE: Sediments & Water Quality at Bay Bridge Enterprises in Chesapeake, VA
Mr. Bayer: Bay Bridge Enterprises has a permit from DEQ that covers storm water discharges from their operations area. There are several other industrial operations (metal scrap operations, bulk material handling and storage, and fertilizer operations) in close proximity to Bay Bridge Enterprises. Their DEQ permit does not authorize discharges of process water.
Working with a local environmental organization (the Elizabeth River Project) and other stakeholders, a monitoring program was established. Funding for this program has been inconsistent but we have been able to continue monitoring in several areas, such as benthic monitoring. This monitoring program is basin wide and is not designed to target specific facilities. Please refer to the following web site for some of the technical reports.
http://www.elizabethriver.org/Publications/ScientificStudies.asp
Please let me know if you have any more questions.
Roger K. Everton
Water Compliance and Monitoring Manager
Virginia Dept. of Environmental Quality
Tidewater Regional Office
5636 Southern Blvd.,Virginia Beach, VA 23462
Phone: 757-518-2150
Fax: 757-518-2003
Email: rkeverton@deq.virginia.gov
(Return to Contents of Virginia DEQ Reconnaissance Inspections of Bay Bridge Enterprises or to Contents about a Shipbreaking Facility in Oregon or Washington]
4. Harper, Scott. 2003. Local Yard Wins in Bid to Scrap 5 'Ghost' Ships. Sept. 4, The Virginian-Pilot.
6. Harper, Scott. 2004. Local Salvage Yard Takes on Ghost Fleet. March 21, The Virginian-Pilot. This is also at http://www.ban.org/ban_news/local_salvage_040321.html
54. Gallob, Joel. 2005. Virginia DEQ Gives Bay Bridge Clean Bill. Dec. 2 Newport News-Times.
80. Hamner, Elise. 2005. Community Split Over Proposed Ship Disposal Site: Citizens Questioning Bringing Toxins into the Bay. Dec. 17, The World (Coos Bay newspaper). After 14 days, it may only be available for a fee at http://www.theworldlink.com/archives/ by searching for "Bay Bridge Enterprises."
81. Hamner, Elise. 2005. Virginia Company has No Environmental Violations. Dec. 20, The World (Coos Bay newspaper). After 14 days, it may only be available for a fee at http://www.theworldlink.com/archives/ by searching for "Bay Bridge Enterprises."
(Return to Contents of Virginia DEQ Reconnaissance Inspections of Bay Bridge Enterprises or to Contents about a Shipbreaking Facility in Oregon or Washington]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .