Maritime Administration knew of Mothball Fleet paint pollution in 1997
Thomas Peele and Mike Taugher
Contra Costa Times
02/07/2010
The U.S. Maritime Administration knew in 1997 that paint falling off its obsolete ships anchored in Suisun Bay could cause toxic pollution, yet took no action for more than a decade while denying a problem existed, according to federal documents.
Cleanup was called "essential" in a 1997 memo that stated, "Environmental precautions must be recognized to the fullest extent."
"Exfoliating paint on (Maritime Administration) ships is an issue that must be addressed," the August 1997 internal memo states. "The discharge of lead and tributyltin, commonly found in marine paints, are prohibited by federal, state and local environmental regulations ... there may be some impacts on water and biotic resources."
But the Maritime Administration undertook no cleanup as the so-called Mothball Fleet anchored off Benicia continued to deteriorate for another decade. A 2007 study — launched after a series of articles in the Contra Costa Times that questioned the fleet's condition — found that 21 tons of paint flakes laden with lead and other toxic metals had fallen into local waters and that 66 more tons remained on the vessels.
The 1997 memo describing the paint as an environmental hazard conflicts with repeated statements from 2006 to 2009 by maritime officials who said the fleet, which contains about 70 ships, of which about 55 are slated for disposal, was not a pollution source.
"They knew they had a problem and didn't want to be proactive," said Bruce Wolfe, chief executive officer of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. "It's obviously frustrating."
The Maritime Administration would not make anyone available for an interview for this article. The acting head of the agency at the time the memo was written, John Graykowski, did not respond to messages.
The water board joined environmental groups in suing the Maritime Administration in 2008, alleging violations of the Clean Water Act and other environmental laws. A federal judge in Sacramento ruled last month that the fleet was an illegal pollution source. A hearing is scheduled in May for discussion of a cleanup plan.
The unsigned memo was turned over to the groups' lawyers during discovery and released by the National Resources Defense Council, which cited recent progress in dealing with the issue.
"The San Francisco Bay should not be a dumping ground for toxic waste," said defense council lawyer Michael Wall. "We are pleased to work with the Obama administration to finally address the serious toxic pollution that (the Maritime Administration) has known about for at least 13 years."
The agency began pulling ships out of the fleet for scrapping last year, after battling the state since 2006.
During a two-year dispute with state regulators that preceded the lawsuit, agency officials never acknowledged that the agency had already identified the paint as an environmental danger. Then-Maritime Administrator Sean Connaughton and the agency's spokeswoman, Shannon Russell, said at the time of the detailed 2007 report that it was the first time exfoliating paint was raised as a pollution issue.
The administration also did not release the 1997 document despite multiple requests under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act filed by the Contra Costa Times for all records pertaining to ship maintenance and related issues for the Suisun fleet.
Connaughton, now the Virginia Secretary of Transportation, did not respond to an interview request made through a spokesman. Russell, who frequently said the agency practiced "good environmental stewardship," left the agency at the end of the Bush administration's second term and could not be reached.
The 1997 "paint removal guidance" memo laid out two potential courses of action for dealing with exfoliating paint: do nothing, or survey the ships and begin to address the problems.
"The first option is costly to the government and will only lead to problems in the future," the memo said.
The memo also said it was "imperative" the agency "work with local environmental agencies."
But when state water pollution regulators told the agency to hold off on plans to clean the hulls of ships taken from the fleet to Alameda in late 2006, the agency's head of environmental affairs, Michael Carter, wrote in an internal e-mail, "I have very little patience for this (stuff). I feel like (w)ringing some necks," court documents show.
The agency went ahead and cleaned a ship without notifying, and in defiance of, state regulators.
Wolfe said the Maritime Administration officials "had their heads in the sand" for years about pollution from the decaying vessels.
"They said their mission was to dispose of ships, not maintain ships," Wolfe said. What added to the frustration, he said, was the idea that the federal government "should be doing the best it can" to comply with the environmental laws it creates.
In a deposition taken as part of the lawsuit, Suisun fleet program manager Joe Pecoraro said he was told at one point by government attorneys that the agency was exempt from the federal Clean Water Act.
Before Pecoraro could answer other questions about that subject, government lawyers cut him off, saying that he could not reveal anything further without violating attorney-client privilege.
He did not return a phone call.
In the deposition, Pecoraro also described efforts to clean up paint falling from the ships after the pollution problems were made public in 2007. He described efforts to purchase vacuums to clean up paint chips on the decks of a World War II-era Victory ship.
