A Bit Of Justice For An Irresponsible Scrapper

MARAD, the Navy and the EPA require that shipbreakers are licensed for demolition work before the ship is transferred to them. Obviously they didnt do their job. The EPA alone has hundreds of pages of documents covering the correct handling and disposal of all manner of toxic ship waste. The ship in question was military so there was no question of ownership..chain of command.

 

It was owned by several civilians. That means it was de-commissioned a long time ago taking the Navy out of the picture. There is no chain of command with civilians. A ship owner can cut it up pretty much any time he wants to. There are some regulations that pertain to specific substances like asbestos, oil and PCBs. This link explains it in detail:
http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/resources/publications/civil/federal/shipscrapguide.pdf

 

Sure ..Ive seen that link..250 pages.

And when the Navy decommissions a ship they just cant hand over the old nuclear submarine to a couple civilians with gas torches then tell them to be careful... . The transfer of the ship comes with legalities.

Was this ship a "SHIP". When anchored was it registered ?

 

Michael this was a cheap, low tech, fast build WWII cargo vessel. As they were sold off it's likely no one kept track, same as with other non weapon bearing military surplus.
It was reduced to barge status when moored. An online search will answer some of your questions but there are holes and omissions in it's history.

 

If the ship was owned by a non-citizen, the ship got automatically taken of the register. Also, if the registration was not renewed it is taken off the register. It can be grounded somewhere for years without problem unless someone complains.

 

First, your post brings up some great questions.

However, as I read the 'journalism,' I asked myself, "Is that what really happened? Or, is that what the reporters expect us to believe?"

As I read the article, the article sounded more like propaganda than honest reporting.

<quote> That was at the root of the problem with the Deep Sea. [was] The Port of Seattle sold the 140-foot former fishing vessel to a scrap dealer who didn’t really have a good plan for it. The scrap dealer, a Maple Valley man with a long history of troublemaking, parked it in Penn Cove and left it. It caught fire and sank last spring, and cost $5.4 million to clean up. </quote>

This and the rest of the article had nothing to do with the headline. And the rest of the article was about the need to curtail all the 'irresponsible owners' of boats.

In that same paragraph, the Port of Seattle did not want to take care of their problem, so they sold it to a 'troublemaker.' If they knew the person was not reputable, why did they think he would take care of their problem reputably?

And then they wonder why it costs $5.4 million to clean up?

The government is being just as irresponsible as the individual owners. In both of the main (expensive) cases, the government knew the purchaser did not have the assets to handle the job. So, why did the government approve the deals?

wayne

 

to a "low information" wannabe journalist, "trouble maker" might be something someone said about a guy they have run into before. The behavior was perhaps not quite as irresponsible as this pejorative might imply, if he did not set the fire that caused it to sink, why would he not think he had more time to relocated to a suitable place to dismantle it?

Because his previous business activity may have resulted in warning letters, or threats of fines, it does not mean he is a "trouble maker", only that he had other projects that came to the authorities attention. I have seen this term applied to well run airlines for example, for warning letters or minor fines because of improper record keeping (and there were no safety issues in question), and the so-called journalist felt that was some how indicative of that airline. Even though it is impossible to run an operation as large as an airline and never have such issues. I imagine ship salvage is the same way, so many laws and agencies to keep happy there is no way to anticipate everything they want before you get started. So warning letters, correction notices, etc are routine, and not necessarily indicative of actual "trouble making". the author should have investigated exactly what was the nature of the issues, and if this was normal for this kind of operation.

I have run across this kind of irresponsible and lazy reporting before with my own clients, where they were in compliance of all issues and notices, but some disgruntled neighbor called some idiot reporter and tells lies about the so-called 'trouble making'.

there is just not enough information here to know what was the issue. it is possible the only reason he went to jail was he had a public defender.

 

That is pretty much what happened. The hiding part may be overstated but not by much.

Modern journalism, propaganda? Say it isn't so!

 

This guy had a history of dirty salvage operations. Upstream he had been forced off of a barge he was wrecking because he was dumping the stuff he couldn't salvage into the river.
Oil, PCB's, asbestos, heavy metals... splash!

 

So, I ask again, "Why did the Port of Seattle select him to get rid of their waste?"

If the Port had selected a good salvage crew, we would not have had the environmental disaster.

It was the Port (the environmentalist government) which did the spill. The man they put in jail was just their mule.

IMHO.

 

there may be laws that require the Port of Seattle to take the highest bid from any licenced salvage operator. So even if they knew about his past, they may not have had any choice, so the contract administrator can hide behind the law. The law would be in place to maximize income off the salvage and to prevent favoritism. If the law was changed so the winning bid also requires a detailed salvage plan to be submitted with the bid, than it can be reviewed for compliance with state regs. But that could lead to only one, or even no, bids.

No easy way out sometimes.

 

Different story, different people. Do try to keep up.
Although you could contact the Port of Seattle and get back to us...

 

Just what I was thinking about the Wall street bail out - NOT
" give us all ya money" why "or else we cant pay bonuses this year" ok

 

best story ever had to be the sinking and oil spill of the Erika off the coat of Spain.

10 + year investigation but they never found the owner

Thats a direct result of the world giving Exxon a kicking for the Valdez which is still costing Exxon plenty and you could blame that on slack USCG crewing regs where they happily allowed massively fatigued crew to operate a vessel