The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has settled an administrative complaint against Global Shipping LLC and Global Marketing Systems, Inc., Cumberland. Md., for alleged illegal distribution and export of a PCB-containing ship--the SS Oceanic (the former S.S. Independence).

According to the Basel Action Network, which describes itself as a "toxic trade watchdog group," the two companies are controlled by "a world famous cash-buyer of obsolete ships, Mr. Anil Sharma.

In February of last year, Basel Action Network and the Save the Classic Liners Campaign tipped-off the EPA when it discovered that Global Marketing Systems, Inc. had taken ownership of the 1951-built SS Oceanic (former SS Independence) and had the liner towed out of San Francisco Bay with the intent of scrapping the vessel on the beaches of South Asia.

In a case that got major media attention and saw the Oceanic widely described as a "toxic ship," Basel Action Network demanded that the U.S. government take action to have the ship returned to a U.S. port. The EPA claimed it lacked the authority to have the ship recalled, but took legal action against GMS for violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) which prohibits the exportation of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), a persistent toxic pollutant used in the paints, insulation and gasketry in older ships.

The two companies will pay a total of $518,500 to resolve the two Toxic Substances Control Act violations. Global Marketing Systems, Inc. will pay a penalty of $32,500 and Global Shipping LLC will pay a penalty of $486,000.

EPA says that Global Shipping LLC purchased and held the Oceanic, a cruise ship formerly named the SS Independence, for the purpose of export beginning on or about July 24, 2007 and continuing until the vessel left the United States on or about February 8, 2008. EPA alleged that the ship contained PCBs and that holding a vessel containing PCBs for purposes of export for disposal constitutes unauthorized distribution in commerce of PCBs.

"Companies need to ensure PCBs are removed from any ship being exported in order to protect public health and the environment from exposure to PCBs," said Jeff Scott, division director for waste programs in the EPA's Pacific Southwest region. "Federal law prohibits companies from exporting PCBs for disposal, including PCBs built into ship components, unless approval from EPA has been obtained."

On or about February 8, 2008, the ship was towed out of the territorial waters of the United States. EPA alleged that Global Shipping LLC and its affiliated company Global Marketing Systems, Inc. worked together to export the Oceanic for disposal outside the United States, a violation of federal law. The EPA was not informed by Global of its intention to export the ship for disposal.

After EPA initiated its enforcement action, Global submitted a new application to the Maritime Administration seeking approval to sell the vessel but changing the purpose of export from disposal to continued use of the vessel to accommodate labor workers in the Arabian Gulf area. However, under the Toxic Substances Control Act, EPA also regulates export for continued use of materials containing regulated levels of PCBs.

Although the QE2 is not scrapped she will be extensively rebuilt and there will be plenty of toxic substances strewn out in the Persian Gulf or Arabian desert.

GP dude, what is the original source of the story?

quote:

---

Originally posted by gpcruisedude:
$518.5 million EPA penalties for export of SS Oceanic (ex SS Independence)

Vessels built before 1979, such as the Oceanic, may contain PCBs in various materials including cables, electrical equipment such as capacitors and transformers, gaskets and watertight seal material, and painted surfaces.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:
GP dude, what is the original source of the story?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:
GP dude, what is the original source of the story?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dougnewman:
Apparently someone who is not good enough at math to tell the difference between $518.5 million and $518,500.

---

It looks like the original story was headlined "$518.5 million EPA penalties ...". But the current page of the original source appears now to have been corrected to "$518,500 EPA penalties ...".

[ 02-02-2009: Message edited by: Globaliser ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Globaliser:
Mr Google is, as always, our friend.

It looks like the original story was headlined "$518.5 million EPA penalties ...". But the current page of the original source appears now to have been corrected to "$518,500 EPA penalties ...".

[ 02-02-2009: Message edited by: Globaliser ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PamM:
"alleged" "may" - seems as though this applies to non-liquid PCBs? What happened to the EPA leaching studies with Oriskany? If they're OK for reefing in US waters, why the fuss here? If not OK, then... what?

Pam

---

"Alleged" and "may" are legal CYA qualifiers used by default when you don't have first-hand access to evidence. Otherwise, Global Marketing's attorneys would sue and most likely win, since the EPA would've made an unsubstantiated claim damaging the good name of Global Marketing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PamM:
Yes Lubber, that is what I meant. I really do not see why all this fuss and palava over Oceanic [including the stories which were apparently untrue about being turned away from Hawaii] when these navy ships get sunk anyway as deemed a minimal hazzard. The fine is not sufficiently large for it be a deterrent to others and appears to me to be a lack of going through the paperwork fine more than anything and to appease the protestors. I am probably wrong but that's my opinion How can a case be made without evidence.

Pam

---

I have to agree. Thanks to Dubya, the US is not a party to the Basel Convention, and the EPA, now a shadow of its former self, is pretty much a rubber-stamp formality. In a gesture to appear useful, they simply slapped Global Marketing on the wrist for not requesting clearance.

Navy ships, on the other hand, are a different yet equally political matter in the US. In the ‘90s at the behest of Vice President Al Gore, the US banned the sale of “ghost fleet” ships to foreign breakers (with the exception of a few ships dispatched to Teeside, where they continue to rot), and he also banned domestic disposal without proper asbestos and PCB abatement. This has had some unintended consequences, such as the environmental quagmire in Suisun Bay in California: rotting 1940s-1960s-vintage ships are leaching heavy metals into an environmentally sensitive estuary, but the Coast Guard forbids them from being towed downstream for scrapping since the barnacles on the hulls are predatory to downstream aquatic life. However, scraping off the barnacles will also scrape off the lead paint and rust that’s already flaking off. In 2007, a local San Francisco environmental group got so fed up with the logistical gridlock that they proceeded to file a lawsuit and tie up the matter in court even further.