DISHONORABLE DISPOSAL the Case Against Dumping U.S
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BASEL ACTION NETWORK July 2011 DISHONORABLE DISPOSAL The Case Against Dumping U.S. Naval Vessels at Sea July 2011 Author: Colby Self Editor: Jim Puckett BASEL ACTION NETWORK www.ban.org │ 206.652.5555 206 First Avenue South, Suite 410 │ Seattle, WA 98104 BAN is a 501(c)3 charitable organization of the U.S. The Basel Action Network (BAN) is the world's only organization focused on confronting the global environmental injustice and economic inefficiency of toxic trade (toxic wastes, products and technologies) and its devastating impacts. Working at the nexus of human rights and environment, we confront the issues of environmental justice at a macro level, preventing disproportionate and unsustainable dumping of the world's toxic waste and pollution on our global village's poorest residents. At the same time we actively promote the sustainable and just solutions to our consumption and waste crises – banning waste trade, while promoting green, toxic free and democratic design of consumer products. Learn more by visiting www.ban.org. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................................1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 3 Congress Mandate to Eliminate the Obsolete Fleet................................................................................. 3 Foreign Dismantling Practices Banned.................................................................................................... 3 Ocean Disposal Practices Adopted........................................................................................................... 4 Ocean Disposal Violates U.S. and International Ocean Dumping Regulations...................................... 4 Navy Studies Claimed No Harm .............................................................................................................. 4 New Evidence Disclaims Navy’s No Harm Assumptions .........................................................................5 Despite New Evidence – More Ocean Dumping.......................................................................................5 Recommend Domestic Recycling as Preferred Disposal Method ............................................................5 Chronology of Events ............................................................................................................................... 6 LEGAL FRAMEWORK..................................................................................................................................7 U.S. Ship Management..............................................................................................................................7 London Convention ...................................................................................................................................7 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act ................................................................................. 11 Toxic Substances Control Act..................................................................................................................14 Stockholm Convention ............................................................................................................................ 17 OECD ....................................................................................................................................................... 17 HUMAN HEALTH RISK.............................................................................................................................18 Artificial Reefs .........................................................................................................................................18 Table 1: ORISKANY Site Fish PCB Sampling: Pre-sinking vs. Post-sinking Concentrations 2006- 2009 .................................................................................................................................................... 20 Table 2: Fish PCB Sampling: ORISKANY Site vs. Control Reef Site 2008 ....................................... 20 SINKEX................................................................................................................................................... 22 INTERNALIZED COSTS............................................................................................................................ 25 Artificial Reefing Costs ........................................................................................................................... 25 Table 3: Artificial Reef Costs 2006-2009............................................................................................27 SINKEX Costs......................................................................................................................................... 28 Table 4: SINKEX Cost Estimates 2005-2008.................................................................................... 30 Domestic Recycling Costs....................................................................................................................... 30 EXTERNALIZED COSTS ........................................................................................................................... 32 Natural Resource Costs .......................................................................................................................... 32 Table 5: Vessel Composition and Material Value of Vessels Dumped at Sea 2000-2010 ................ 34 Air Pollution Costs.................................................................................................................................. 34 Table 6: C02 Emissions and Hidden Flow Savings from Recycling .................................................. 36 Table 7: Ex-FORRESTAL CO2 Emissions and Hidden Flow Savings from Recycling ..................... 36 Fishery Resource Costs............................................................................................................................37 Uptake into the Marine Food Chain....................................................................................................... 39 Future Remediation Costs.......................................................................................................................41 Job Loss Costs......................................................................................................................................... 43 ALTERNATIVES TO OCEAN DUMPING ................................................................................................. 45 Ship Sales for Reuse ............................................................................................................................... 45 Ship Donation......................................................................................................................................... 45 Overseas Shipbreaking ............................................................................................................................47 Table 8: Overseas vs. Domestic Ship Recycling: 1970 – 1997 ........................................................... 48 Domestic Recycling ................................................................................................................................ 52 RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................................................................................57 Enforce the London Convention .............................................................................................................57 Amend the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act ..............................................................57 End SINKEX: Revoke General Permit ....................................................................................................57 Enforce the Toxic Substances Control Act............................................................................................. 59 Eliminate Double Standards .................................................................................................................. 59 Ratify the London Protocol and Invoke the Precautionary Principle ................................................... 59 Lead by Example: Honor the Waste Management Hierarchy............................................................... 60 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................................61 APPENDIX A................................................................................................................................................. i MARAD Scrapping Cost Estimates vs. Actual Costs 2001-2008.......................................................... i APPENDIX B................................................................................................................................................iv Naval Vessels Disposed At Sea, 2000-2010.........................................................................................iv SOURCES ...................................................................................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION 1 INTRODUCTION Based on faulty analysis and traditional global commons and future generations. assumptions, the U.S. Federal government has This report explores