Memorandum submitted by Mr Frank Cook
MP, Member for Stockton North
"GHOST SHIPS" RECYCLING AT GRAYTHORP
It is rare that I seek to quote journalists
in support of my case, but on this occasion I believe that the
words of Geoffrey Lean, the Environment Editor for the Independent
on Sunday, accurately sum up the reality of what I regard as a
quite scandalous attempt to mislead both my constituents and the
rest of the British public, whilst at the same time cause serious
damage to a reputable company which has its headquarters in my
constituency.
Geoffrey Lean wrote:
"The campaign to stop the first of the
US "ghost ships" being dismantled in Hartlepool is one
of the more outrageous pieces of spin recently to be inflicted
on the British public. It risks resulting in much more damage
to people and the environment worldwide than it claims to try
to prevent."
As well as my direct constituency interest in
this matter, I am able to offer my professional experience gained
over many years in working in the industrial plants of Teesside,
including the execution and supervision of activities directly
related to the removal of hazardous materials such as asbestos.
I am fully acquainted with the measures which
need to be taken in dealing with such substances and I believe
that Members of the Committee should be aware that, not only has
Able UK a long experience in this field, but also regularly undertakes
contracts involving the demolition of very large plants and buildings,
such as, power stations, which contain vast amounts of hazardous
materials far in excess of those found on board the vessels which
it is seeking to recycle under its contract with the United States
Maritime Administration.
I would also point out that throughout my political
career I have always sought to promote the protection of the environment,
both within my own patch and indeed on a global basis. I take
pride in claiming that on many occasions I have worked actively
and effectively alongside numerous environmental organisations—Friends
of the Earth being but one of them.
However, I fear that the genuine respect I had
for that particular organisation has been somewhat dissipated
as a result of what I am on record already, as describing as misleading
their actions over the so-called "ghost ship" issue.
I invite the Committee to scrutinise some of
the claims which have been made by the FoE representatives particularly
and contrast their fiction with the facts. For example, the vessels
have been described as "floating time bombs" which pose
the risk of a "cataclysmic" oil spill, from hulls which
can be pierced with a hammer.
In truth these are redundant auxiliary naval
vessels, carrying no cargo, toxic or otherwise; with infinitesimal
amounts of oil in the bottom of their tanks. Compare that to the
huge quantities carried on board the tankers which sail in and
out of the River Tees on a regular daily basis—and frankly,
if their hulls were as thin as they claimed they would never have
been awarded a certificate of sea worthiness or been granted insurance
cover by the underwriters.
The ferocity of the campaign mounted by Friends
of the Earth and others has been as remarkable as it has been
dishonest. However, no-one can deny that it has been effective,
at least in the short term.
It has caused enormous alarm amongst my constituents
and the rest of the Teesside community. I regret to say, it has
led some elected representatives and Government agencies into
taking irrational and indeed irresponsible positions in regard
to the contract—a contract won by a company with a proven
track record in the field of marine decommissioning and with facilities
which are recognised as being amongst the best in the world.
The result of the failure of those representatives
and agencies to withstand the blatant scaremongering tactics of
Friends of the Earth and their allies is that we find ourselves
in the legal and political morass facing the Committee today.
If one cuts through the verbiage, there can
be only one conclusion—after lengthy discussions between
numerous agencies on both sides of the Atlantic the appropriate
permissions were granted by the Environment Agency in regard to
the transfrontier shipment of waste and in regard to the licence
at Able's Graythorp facility.
It is a matter of fact that Hartlepool Borough
Council only issued a statement claiming that a key planning permission
for the construction of the dry dock at the Able facility was
no longer valid after the first ships had begun their journey
from the United States. It should be emphasised here that the
company strongly contest the Council's viewpoint on the matter
of the planning permission which was granted originally in 1997
as a means of attracting for demolition the Brent Spar platform
a structure containing infinitely more toxins and contaminants
than all 13 US vessels put together.
It is also a matter of fact that it was only
after Friends of the Earth's sustained campaign of distortion
and disinformation—and only hours after the organisation
began the process of seeking judicial review—that the Environment
Agency apparently discovered that the permissions it had granted
already to the United States Maritime Administration and to Able
were no longer valid. Again I must emphasise that Able UK challenged
the validity of the Environment Agency judgment in this regard.
I take no pleasure in criticising elected representatives
and agencies, but on this occasion I am driven to the conclusion
that the responsibility for the present situation must fall largely
on their shoulders.
There is a further aspect of this matter which
I believe should be of serious concern to your Committee. Great
play has been made by the environmental lobby of the fact that
countries should be responsible for handling their own waste—including
redundant shipping—with the allegation that this is an example
of the United States failing to accept proper responsibility.
The reality is, in my view, somewhat different.
Indeed I would argue that the United States, on this occasion,
should be given credit for the very responsible position it has
adopted in regard to the recycling of its redundant vessels—ensuring
that the work is carried out to the best possible environmental
standards in the best possible facilities.
There is increasing evidence that this stance
contrasts starkly with the realities of the situation in other
developed countries—including, it would appear, here and
in the rest of Europe. In recent days we have seen clear evidence
delivered by Greenpeace that merchant vessels owned and managed
by UK firms are ending their days in the horrendous breakers yards
at Alang in India where they are broken apart in the open air
with no safety consideration or environmental protection whatsoever
and where literally thousands of workers meet their deaths as
a result of handling toxic substances.
What is even more alarming is that evidence
is now coming to light that Royal Naval vessels have undergone
similar irresponsible treatment, with the Teesside media reporting
the direct—and alarming—experiences of a retired mariner
who was involved in the transport of vessels from the UK to India.
Yet at the same time we see bodies such as the
Environment Agency effectively taking measures to frustrate activities
of a company, which has many years of experience in the recycling
of marine structures and which has developed a facility specifically
designed to undertake the work in safe and environmentally sound
conditions.
Clearly the legal hearings scheduled to take
place may assist in resolving the immediate problem, but I hope
that Committee members will recognise the importance of ensuring
that decisions in relation to the recycling of redundant vessels
are taken on the basis of fact rather than fiction—and that
we are in no position to criticise other nations if we turn a
blind eye to the treatment of our own hulks.
19 November 2003
Letter to the Committee Clerk from Mr
Peter Stephenson, Chief Executive of Able UK Ltd
Thank you for your letter dated 13 November
2003. I note you requested a reply by lunchtime on 1 November
2003, however, unfortunately, I have only just received your letter
this morning.
May I firstly, thank the Committee for the opportunity
given to us on this occasion to provide the information to you.
Please note below headings of the points you
raised together with some additional points, which may be of assistance.
1. WHY ABLE
UK LTD SOUGHT
A MODIFICATION
TO THEIR
WASTE MANAGEMENT
LICENCE FOR
THE TERRC FACILITY
(NO CLE411)
Able UK sought to modify the TERRC Waste Management
Licence to increase the level of waste material it could accept
into the site. This was so that we could receive the ships from
the MARAD Contract.
The majority of offshore structures that we
receive are brought in with the initial objective to be able to
refurbish and resell them, therefore, they are not imported as
waste. However, these ships were classed by the owner as no longer
having use for them and they insisted that we had to recycle them
and could not reuse them. We therefore had to import the full,
complete ships as waste, even though less than 2% of the material
on the ships was actual waste. The remaining material (+98%) being
reused or recycled. We have achieved over 98% of reuse/recycling
on all of the marine structures we have received from the oil
and gas fields in the North Sea to-date (being circa 70 No structures
in total).
The increase was for the site to accept 200,000
tonnes per year as per Condition 2.4 of TERRC Waste Management
Licence. An increase of this kind is standard practice within
the UK waste industry. As the UK Environment Agency charge a subsistence
fee depending on the amount of waste a licence can accept it is
the norm for waste operators to only increase the tonnage allowance
through a modification of the licence when they have enough business
to justify the additional cost.
Able UK also sought to clarify that the TERRC
Waste Management Licence could accept ships. It has always been
the understanding by Able UK that scrap metal ships, such as the
MARAD ships, could be classed as scrap metal or machinery such
as offshore structures (example: when wagons or cars are taken
to scrap yards, the licence for the scrap yard does not state
they can receive a lorry for scrap). It was the intention of Able
UK to clarify by way of description that ships were included in
the text of the TERRC Waste Management Licence for the avoidance
of doubt because of the problems that arose by third parties questioning
whether a ship was a marine structure or not, as per the planning
permission.
ABLE have on numerous occasions asked the Environment
Agency for details on the legal reasons as to why they are of
the opinion that ABLE's Licence was invalid, however, to date,
ABLE have not received this information.
2. DATE OF
APPLICATION FOR
THE MODIFICATION
30 July 2003.
3. DATE MODIFICATION
RECEIVED
The UK Environment Agency issued the modified
licence on 30 September 2003.
Able UK were verbally informed on 30 October
2003 by the UK Environment Agency that their decision to modify
the TERRC Licence was invalid on two counts.
On the evening of 30 September 2003, Able UK
asked—and since then both Able UK and their Solicitors (Ward
Hadaway) have asked on numerous occasions—for the legal
details that supported the statement from the Environment Agency
so that Able UK's solicitors could understand their view. To date,
this information has not been received. Able UK has therefore
prepared their Defence for the Judicial Hearing based on the statements
made by the Environment Agency.
4. BASIS THAT
ABLE UK HAD
BEEN INFORMED
BY THE
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
THAT THEIR
MODIFICATION WAS
INVALIDATED
The first reason was that the Environment Agency
say they failed to consider that during their assessment of risk
to the environment, they did not consider the possibility of dismantling
ships in the wet dock. It must be noted however that Able UK have
always been able to dismantle in the wet dock under its existing
licence and in line with its Working Plan. It is therefore somewhat
of a surprise that the UK Environment Agency did not take this
operation into consideration.
The second reason that the Environment Agency
gave for invalidating the modification is that they were unable
to modify the tonnage allowed into the TERRC site because it was
printed on the front page of the licence. We understand that it
is the Environment Agency's argument that they can only modify
licence conditions and not the licence itself. This is in total
contradiction of the Environment Agency's current practice of
modifying Waste Management Licences in the UK. In the area of
Teesside alone, Able UK are aware of many Waste Management Licences
that are exactly the same as the TERRC Waste Management Licence
that the UK Environment Agency have modified to increase the tonnages
allowed on that Licence.
5. ABLE UK'S
UNDERSTANDING OF
THE MODIFICATION
ISSUED 30 SEPTEMBER
2003
It allows the TERRC facility to receive waste
as defined in our Licence of quantities up to 200,000 tonnes per
fiscal year.
Clarifies, for the avoidance of doubt, that
ships are allowed to be received under that description, as referred
to in the Licence.
For the avoidance of doubt, at no time did the
Environment Agency suggest that the modification would only allow
Able UK to undertake the work of recycling the MARAD ships in
a dry dock facility. However, we confirm that was, and still is,
our intention.
6. CONDITION
OF MARAD SHIPS
In my attached Witness Statement [not printed],
Sections 57-64 describe the full details of the surveys etc that
were undertaken prior to the ships leaving the US. The first two
ships have made the journey with no incidents whatsoever and are
currently berthed in the TERRC facility (see attached "Powerpoint"
document which contains photographs of the ships arriving at the
TERRC facility and an aerial photograph showing the first ship
in the TERRC facility [not printed]).
As we have continually stated in our press releases,
the hulls of these ships are very sound and we undertook surveys
of the thickness at the waterline of the ships which was between
17-25 millimetres thick. Some of the ships also have on backing
plates of up to 35 millimetres thick. This compares admirably
with new ship hulls today which are constructed circa 6-10 millimetres
thick.
7. LACK OF
OPENNESS
Able UK are particularly concerned at the lack
of openness from the Environment Agency and it is obvious that
the Environment Agency had been considering asking Able UK to
return the ships some two weeks before the meeting on 30 October
2003. It would have been in the interest of all parties if the
Environment Agency, as soon as they thought they had a problem
with their procedures or whatever, had informed Able UK and brought
us on board. We could have then jointly considered the problem
and obtained legal opinion. If this had been done, we are confident
that the current situation could have been avoided.
The Environment Agency held a meeting with regard
to the bund etc at their offices where they invited persons from
various governmental departments to discuss the situation however
Able UK were refused permission to attend. We now understand another
meeting has been arranged on a similar basis, without Able UK
being invited to attend.
The situation that has evolved is not acceptable
and Able UK has lost total confidence in the Environment Agency
and Hartlepool Borough Council which we are sure will not only
have a detrimental effect on Able UK's speculative investment
in the future but also on a significant number of other businesses
who have contacted us from all over the UK with regard to their
concern and disbelief at the current situation.
One can imagine the damage that this has done
to our credibility and business, which we strive so hard to achieve.
It is very difficult for us to convince potential clients that
we have all permissions and licences in place to be able to undertake
various contract works when government officials are making public
statements saying that we do not.
8. OTHER RELEVANT
INFORMATION
For your appraisal, we have attached the following
[attachments (b) to (l) are not printed]:
| (a) |
| Summary of Able UK's concerns regarding the situation surrounding the MARAD Contract/HBC/EA.
|
| (b) | 4 October 2003 | ABLE's response to the Environment Agency.
|
| (c) | 4 October 2003 | ABLE's response to questions from the Environment Agency.
|
| (d) | 30 October 2003 | Email (18:39 hrs) from Able UK to the Environment Agency.
|
| (e) | 3 November 2003 | Letter from Able UK to the Environment Agency.
|
| (f) | 4 November 2003 | Email (05:10 hrs) from Able UK to the Environment Agency enclosing copy letter sent to the Chief Executive of Hartlepool Borough Council.
|
| (g) | 4 November 2003 | Email (06:01 hrs) Able UK to the Environment Agency—recording concerns.
|
| (h) | 7 November 2003 | Letter (Ref: 03\0858) from Able UK to the Environment Agency.
|
| (i) | 12 November 2003 |
Letter from Ward Hadaway (Able UK's solicitors) to the Environment Agency—regarding the TFS.
|
| (j) | 12 November 2003 |
Letter from Ward Hadaway (Able UK's solicitors) to the Environment Agency—regarding court details and information requested from the Environment Agency.
|
| (k) | 13 November 2003 |
Letter from Ward Hadaway (Able UK's solicitors) to the Environment Agency—regarding emergency modification implemented by the Environment Agency.
|
| (l) | November 2003 | Draft Witness Statement of Peter Stephenson for the Courts regarding Friends of the Earth -v- Environment Agency Judicial Review, to be heard 8 December 2003.
|
We hope the above information is of assistance and helps
with your understanding of the situation. If we can be of further
assistance then please do not hesitate to contact us.
Peter M Stephenson
Chief Executive
1. BRIEF HISTORY
RELATING TO
ABLE UK AND
AWARD OF
MARAD 13 NO SHIP
DISPOSAL CONTRACT
1.1 Able UK Ltd (ABLE) were approached by Post-Service
Remediation Partners LLC (PRP) on 14 January 2003. They enquired
as to ABLE's capabilities and if ABLE would be interested in receiving
and recycling redundant ships from the US Auxiliary Fleet.
1.2 ABLE provided information and were visited by PRP
on 24 January 2003 and made a presentation. Following this, a
significant amount of information was provided to PRP to demonstrate
ABLE's experience and capabilities.
1.3 ABLE were requested by MARAD to provide a TCP (Technical
Compliance Plan) which consisted of the following documents:
— Environmental Compliance Plan.
1.4 This was to demonstrate ABLE's knowledge and ability
to apply all applicable health, safety and environmental regulations
with regard to receiving, remediating and recycling redundant
ships.
1.5 Following receipt of this information a visit was
arranged to ABLE.
1.6 A team from MARAD and the US Environmental Protection
Agency visited ABLE on 24 February 2003.
— Michael Carter (Director—Office of Environmental
Activities)—MARAD
— Curt Michanczyk (Ship Disposal Program Manager)—MARAD
— Laura Casey (Office of Pollution Prevention &
Toxics)—US EPA
1.7 Detailed audits where undertaken relating to health,
safety and environmental matters in relation to ABLE, the TERRC
Facility, Seaton Meadows Landfill Site and Shanks Waste Solution
(liquid waste treatment facility) in Hartlepool.
1.8 At this visit there were also discussions relating
to ABLE's technical and business capabilities.
1.9 Information, questions and answers provided to MARAD
included MARAD enquiring to ABLE with regard to the situation
for permissions, licences, permits etc required. ABLE had commenced
contact with the Environment Agency (EA) and Hartlepool Borough
Council (HBC) in February 2003 to determine these items.
1.10 During April, May and June 2003, ABLE looked at
various feasibility studies and different methods of how to carry
out the works to provide the safest working environment for workers
and the least possible risk to the environment, but at the same
time providing the best benefit to the environment. A significant
amount of resources was utilised into the alternatives, which
included designing and constructing large ramp and facilities
that would pull the ships up the ramp onto dry land to carry out
the works. The conclusion was that the method that would provide
the best practicable environmental option (BPEO) was to refurbish
the dry dock, construct the bund and carry out the recycling works
in the dry dock. This provided a major benefit of having the dry
dock refurbished so that it will be available for other uses,
particularly construction activities.
1.11 On 23 May 2003 MARAD received permission from the
US Environmental Protection Agency to be able to export the ships
to ABLE's TERRC facility.
1.12 On 25 July 2003, the main contract was signed between
MARAD and PRP.
2. ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
2.1 When ABLE received their first Waste Management Licence
for the TERRC facility it was based on background knowledge of
the Brent Spar being received, remediated and dismantled in the
facility.
2.2 An Environmental Impact Assessment had been provided
and a Regulation 48 in accordance with the Habitats Directive.
This Assessment showed that the TERRC operations would not cause
any significant effect on the local environment.
2.3 This Waste Management Licence was issued to ABLE
on 1 October 1997.
2.4 When the Licence was issued to reduce operating costs,
ABLE agreed a limit on their Waste Management Licence of 25,000
tonnes per annum. On the understanding that this would not be
a problem to increase if and when required as the quantities in
the Environmental Assessment when the Licence was considered was
based on 720,000 tonnes per annum.
2.5 Since the issue of the TERRC Waste Management Licence
in 1997, ABLE have operated the facility without causing any significant
detrimental effect to the environment.
2.6 ABLE have been part of numerous environmental assessments
during its operation and in all cases have shown that the operations
have not caused any environmental problems.
2.7 The EA have modified the TERRC Licence twice since
1997-2002. On both occasions the EA modified the licence without
any problems, even though modifications were to change the type
of materials the site could accept. This type of modification
would require a more in-depth assessment than simply increasing
the amount of waste the site could take.
2.8 When ABLE applied for its most recent modification,
ABLE expected that the modification would have been issued in
the normal manor and time frame however this was not the case.
3. HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH
COUNCIL
3.1 The site was operational as a shipyard from 1913-63.
3.2 The site was operational as a dry dock from 1970
until Able purchased the site.
3.3 ABLE submitted a planning application on 29 August
1996 to the Teesside Development Corporation. With this application,
ABLE provided an Environmental Assessment to cover the development
and the operations together with a Regulation 48 Assessment in
accordance with the Habitats Regulations.
3.4 Due to the high profile of the Brent Spar of which
ABLE envisaged as being one of the first major projects in the
facility, there were significant delays in the planning process
and ABLE finally received approval on 1 October 1997 (No TDC/96/091).
Included in the process, ABLE provided a presentation to Hartlepool
Council, Statutory Consultees and the General Public on 6 May
1997 in the Hartlepool Town Hall. Here, ABLE explained their intentions
with the former Laings Facility (TERRC site) and, in particular,
recycling the Brent Spar including details of significant quantities
of wastes that would have to be removed, processed and disposed.
3.5 On 7 September 2000, ABLE applied for permission
to erect a Gantry Crane and Buildings and approval was received
on 7 February 2002 (Permission No H/FUL/0462/00).
3.6 On 18 December 1996, ABLE applied for permission
to construct a pipeline spool base and on 30 January 1997 the
TDC were minded to approve the spool base, however, this was finally
refused and the contract was lost with circa 200 jobs being lost.
This was due to representations from the RSPB (Royal Society for
the Protection of Birds). The Client built their new facilities
in Scotland and Norway.
3.7 On 13 June 2002, ABLE received planning approval
based on existing permissions but without Conditions 9 and 10
applying, which related to human activity and noise. These conditions
were removed as during the previous five years of continuous monitoring
and simulations, ABLE proved to the satisfaction of all concerned
that the works were not causing any detrimental effect to the
local ecology.
3.8 In February 2003, ABLE approached the planning department
of HBC and asked for confirmation that ships could be recycled
on the site under the term "marine structures" and this
was confirmed by HBC.
4. PROBLEMS
4.1 Problems appear to have arisen when Friends of the
Earth (FoE) started to question the decision making process of
HBC and threatened to take HBC to a Judicial Review.
4.2 In ABLE's opinion, HBC appear to have panicked at
this threat and this then became all-important to them to the
detriment of the Contract and obvious benefits to the area. Since
then, ABLE have had to put in a tremendous amount of resources
in trying to find copies of correspondence going back some eight
years. This has culminated with ABLE having to prepare a defence
for the Judicial Hearing from Public Interest Lawyers to HBC as
ABLE are concerned that HBC would not defend the action in the
best manner and the TERRC facility would suffer significantly
from the potential consequences. This has cost ABLE a great deal
with regard to resources, finance and loss of work.
4.3 Up until this time, HBC had been fully supportive
of ABLE and their TERRC facility and with the benefit of this
support, ABLE have invested some £10 million in the site
and were prepared to invest a further £14.6 million for Phase
2 Development which included enlargement and refurbishment of
the dock. However, certain persons (in particular the Mayor of
Hartlepool together with certain Councillors) have jumped on the
"high profile bandwagon" and started to denounce the
Contract, ABLE and the TERRC facility without even having the
decency to contact ABLE to obtain the facts. These people appear
to prefer to believe the lies, exaggerated and misleading information
stated in the press, particularly bantered about by FoE as opposed
to finding out the facts.
4.4 During this period, ABLE made verbal offers to HBC
to give a presentation to Officers, Politicians, Councillors,
the General Public etc—whoever the Council preferred—so
that ABLE could provide full detailed information to provide confidence
and allay any fears. ABLE emailed HBC on two occasions making
this offer, which was not accepted by HBC.
4.5 ABLE also made three direct offers to FoE to meet.
On two occasions FoE said they would come for a meeting but then
didn't turn up. FoE have made all the misleading statements without
obtaining any facts from ABLE.
4.6 Also, as soon as ABLE were aware of FoE's concern,
Peter Stephenson (Chief Executive of ABLE) contacted FoE's solicitors
(Phil Michaels) in London and extended an invitation to meet to
discuss the Contract. ABLE then sent a copy of the Contract and
a copy of the Transfrontier Waste Shipment Notification Form which
had a list of all the actual wastes on the ships. Despite this,
FoE have continued to mislead the public.
4.7 A statement by FoE regarding lack of Environmental
Assessments is totally false and ABLE have undertaken Environmental
Assessments (in conjunction with all the relevant Local Authorities)
as and when required and all assessments have stated that the
activities will not cause significant detrimental effect to the
local ecology. This has also been proven by monitoring etc since
and in the eight years that ABLE has been in occupation of the
TERRC facility, there has been no record whatsoever of any detrimental
effect on the local ecology.
4.8 The information that FoE have stated and that has
been reflected in the Press on numerous occasions that the ships
have cargoes and large quantities of hazardous wastes is totally
misleading and incorrect. Less than 2% of the total tonnage of
the ships arriving is waste, everything else will be reused or
recycled. What FoE have done to mislead people is quite often
they have referred to document from the US that have referred
to ships in the MARAD fleet and people have assumed they are referring
to the ships ABLE are receiving—this is not correct.
4.9 ABLE never expected the furore and high profile surrounding
this contract because it is no different to the receival of the
Brent Spar that was proposed and no different from receival, remediation
and recycling works that have been undertaken each year since
1996 with no complaints from any person whatsoever including general
public, neighbours and environmental organisations.
4.10 What is interesting to note regarding this episode,
is that the public figures that have bothered to take the time
to investigate the facts with us have then publicly given their
support. This has been very much appreciated by ABLE and we are
confident that the contract and development will be a major benefit
to the area. These include but are not limited to the following:
— Alistair Arkley, Tees Valley Regeneration
— Brian Dinsdale, Middlesbrough Council
— Steve Dyson, Editor—Evening Gazette Newspaper
— Neil Etherington, Tees Valley Regeneration
— Ray Mallon, Mayor of Middlesbrough
— Also, of late: Media who are now presenting more
of the true facts to the public.
| 
