April 2008
Toxic hazards of recycling
Recyling a ship has its hazards. Take the case of the SS Oceanic and the Basel Ban.
In 1994, a coalition of developing countries, European countries and Greenpeace managed to find consensus on what has become known as the Basel Ban. At the time, countries including Canada, the U.S. Australia, Germany, Japan, South Korea and the UK, as well as various industrial lobbies, were in strong opposition. The Basel Ban decision effectively banned all forms of hazardous waste exports from the 29 wealthiest industrialized countries of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to all non-OECD countries, as of January 1, 1998. The Basel Ban followed the adoption of the Basel Convention in 1989 in Basel, Switzerland, which was to regulate “the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal.”
The Convention was brought about in response to multiple international incidents that began to occur in the 1980s involving hazardous waste trafficking, and was officially “in place” in 1992.
Opponents of the 1994 Basel Ban argued that the decision was not legally binding unless it was officially part of the Basel Convention, through amendment. According to the Basel Action Network (www.ban.org), an organization dedicated to stopping the dumping of toxic waste in developing countries, the Basel Ban is still under serious attack and the organization is working very hard to protect it and ratify it into permanent law.
The struggle surrounding the Basel Ban is a very poignant example of how difficult the process of change for the betterment of the environment and human rights can be when those changes affect the bottom line of industry – which is almost always the case. This particular fight has been going on for more than two decades now, and just recently, the U.S. EPA has filed suit against Global Marketing Services, a “cash buyer” company caught illegally exporting the SS Oceanic (formerly SS Independence), a 1950s era 682-foot ocean liner previously owned by Norwegian Cruise Lines. The ship left San Francisco February 8 of this year, on its way to one of the “notorious breaking beaches of South Asia.” (It is not known where exactly the ship is headed – at press time the SS Oceanic was somewhere in the Western Pacific.) GMS reportedly routinely sends ships to operations in South Asia. However, all the EPA has done is proposed levying a fine.
According to Jim Puckett of the Basel Action Network (BAN), “The government is letting the ship owners get away with what could be tantamount to murder. It’s merely slapping these perpetrators on the wrist and allowing the offense to continue. Lives are at stake here so why on earth is the government not demanding that the ship be turned back to U.S. territory at once?” BAN says the ship is to be scrapped and is a “toxic timebomb” for labourers in South Asia. The ship is estimated to be loaded with 210 tons of toxic polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contaminated material and 250 tons of asbestos. Operations in South Asia are infamous for endangering workers and the immediate environment by failing to safely manage asbestos, PCBs, toxic paints, and residual fuels. EPA filed suit because the export of PCBs is illegal under the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA). Though, according to Puckett, “by the time the lawsuit is decided the damage will have been done.” “We’ve seen this time and time again,” said Corey Abelove, of the Save the Classic Liners Campaign, another organization involved in the fight against toxic exporting practices. “The U.S. Maritime Administration turns a blind eye or even assists in the re-flagging and export of toxic vessels even though they know very well that these exports may likely be illegal under U.S. or international law. Such policies lead to workers dying, the environment suffering, historic preservation thwarted and our own domestic ship recycling industry denied business and jobs. And now the EPA is merely going to fine the owners some thousands of dollars when they stand to make millions dumping poisons. If this stands, it’s a shameful lose-lose-lose scenario.”
In 1994, a coalition of developing countries, European countries and Greenpeace managed to find consensus on what has become known as the Basel Ban. At the time, countries including Canada, the U.S. Australia, Germany, Japan, South Korea and the UK, as well as various industrial lobbies, were in strong opposition. The Basel Ban decision effectively banned all forms of hazardous waste exports from the 29 wealthiest industrialized countries of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to all non-OECD countries, as of January 1, 1998. The Basel Ban followed the adoption of the Basel Convention in 1989 in Basel, Switzerland, which was to regulate “the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal.”
The Convention was brought about in response to multiple international incidents that began to occur in the 1980s involving hazardous waste trafficking, and was officially “in place” in 1992.
Opponents of the 1994 Basel Ban argued that the decision was not legally binding unless it was officially part of the Basel Convention, through amendment. According to the Basel Action Network (www.ban.org), an organization dedicated to stopping the dumping of toxic waste in developing countries, the Basel Ban is still under serious attack and the organization is working very hard to protect it and ratify it into permanent law.
The struggle surrounding the Basel Ban is a very poignant example of how difficult the process of change for the betterment of the environment and human rights can be when those changes affect the bottom line of industry – which is almost always the case. This particular fight has been going on for more than two decades now, and just recently, the U.S. EPA has filed suit against Global Marketing Services, a “cash buyer” company caught illegally exporting the SS Oceanic (formerly SS Independence), a 1950s era 682-foot ocean liner previously owned by Norwegian Cruise Lines. The ship left San Francisco February 8 of this year, on its way to one of the “notorious breaking beaches of South Asia.” (It is not known where exactly the ship is headed – at press time the SS Oceanic was somewhere in the Western Pacific.) GMS reportedly routinely sends ships to operations in South Asia. However, all the EPA has done is proposed levying a fine.
According to Jim Puckett of the Basel Action Network (BAN), “The government is letting the ship owners get away with what could be tantamount to murder. It’s merely slapping these perpetrators on the wrist and allowing the offense to continue. Lives are at stake here so why on earth is the government not demanding that the ship be turned back to U.S. territory at once?” BAN says the ship is to be scrapped and is a “toxic timebomb” for labourers in South Asia. The ship is estimated to be loaded with 210 tons of toxic polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contaminated material and 250 tons of asbestos. Operations in South Asia are infamous for endangering workers and the immediate environment by failing to safely manage asbestos, PCBs, toxic paints, and residual fuels. EPA filed suit because the export of PCBs is illegal under the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA). Though, according to Puckett, “by the time the lawsuit is decided the damage will have been done.” “We’ve seen this time and time again,” said Corey Abelove, of the Save the Classic Liners Campaign, another organization involved in the fight against toxic exporting practices. “The U.S. Maritime Administration turns a blind eye or even assists in the re-flagging and export of toxic vessels even though they know very well that these exports may likely be illegal under U.S. or international law. Such policies lead to workers dying, the environment suffering, historic preservation thwarted and our own domestic ship recycling industry denied business and jobs. And now the EPA is merely going to fine the owners some thousands of dollars when they stand to make millions dumping poisons. If this stands, it’s a shameful lose-lose-lose scenario.”
Keith Barker
