IOSC Options for Vessel Removal

A Primer on Derelict Vessel Removal with Success Stories
By CDR Dan R. Norton, USCG
LT Danielle Renoud, USCG
According to African legend older elephants instinctively would direct themselves when they
reached their time to an area to die called the elephant graveyard. The myth was due partly to
the fact that while elephants are the largest of land mammals, their bones were supposedly never
found lying around openly on the African plains. Contributing to the myth was that older
elephants and elephant skeletons were often found in the same habitat. Thus the elephant
graveyard was believed to be the final destination for literally thousands of elephants and that
their bones and tusks would litter the graveyard.
While elephants may have been believed to have had elephant graveyards to go to die in, the
question remains for today’s maritime vessels; where to vessels go to die? Like elephants,
today’s fleets of maritime vessels are relatively large as far as man-made structures, and older
vessels may be found clumped together near industrial waterways or low rent marinas. Unlike
elephant bones, however, the steel frames and structures of vessels do not quickly decompose
and remain visible symbols of our nation’s limited success in creating a process for dealing with
vessels that are no longer profitable to operate.
Derelict is broadly defined as deserted, neglected, or as abandoned property. Many states have
statutes which include specific legal definitions of derelict and/or abandoned. Derelict vessel is
the term best used to describe such vessels that are not longer profitable to operate and many
have exceeded their service life. In most cases these vessels will incur more costs for proper
maintenance than profits gained from their operation. Thus, these vessels posses a negative
operational value. In addition to their negative operational value most such vessels also posses
an overall net negative value as any inherent recycling value is more than offset by incurred
disposal costs. With out a positive operational or overall value, such vessels are ripe for to
become a derelict/abandoned vessel and be a burden for their community, local, state, and
federal government.
Derelict vessels are public eye-sores and pose hazards to the communities in which they reside
due to the cornucopia of hazardous materials they contain. Hazardous materials include fuel oil,
lubricating oils, lead-based paints, acid batteries, asbestos, and refrigerants like ammonia and
Freon. Other threats include physical threats from attracting children and vagrants, local
environmental impacts from the leaching of iron, potential homes for illegally dumped oil or
hazardous materials, and navigational hazards.
While many derelict vessels are abandoned, not all are. Abandonment refers to a vessel which
has no active owner, defined for barges as an owner who has moored, stranded, or left a vessel
unattended for longer than 45 days (Abandoned Barge Act, 48 USC 4701). Frequently for
derelict vessels an owner or operator can be found, however they usually lack the financial
means to correct the vessel’s deficiencies.
This paper does not reflect the views of the U.S. Coast Guard or the International Oil Spill Conference.

Independent surveys from 1991 by the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
found approximately 1300 and 4000 abandoned vessels respectively (USCG Marine Safety
Manual, Volume 10, Chapter 10). In response to this national survey, U.S. Congress in 1992
enacted the Abandoned Barge Act (ABA) of 1992. Unfortunately as the name implies, the act is
relevant only to barges, specifically those over 100 Gross Tons. Other federal laws against
derelict/ abandonment of a vessel are also narrowly constructed (Boring, 2006).
For communities seeking to properly dispose of derelict vessels, there are several core issues to
consider. These include ownership, removal authority, funding sources, environmental cleanup,
and disposal methods. While this paper is intended to provide a general discussion of primary
issues involved in the derelict vessel removal process, it is by no means all-inclusive.
Ownership
Ownership is the central theme of our legal system in that the owner, and to a financial degree,
their insurer, are held responsible for their property. The first step in mitigating a derelict vessel
is to attempt to identify and notify the owner of their responsibilities. For U.S. vessels, a search
usually starts with the Coast Guard Vessel Documentation Center for commercial vessels or with
the appropriate state boating agency for recreational vessels. For internationally registered
vessels, the U.S. Coast Guard, the vessel’s flag state, or the International Maritime Organization
may be of assistance.
Vessels in the twilight of their service life may not be properly documented, confounding agency
efforts to track down the legal owner(s). Some older commercial fishing vessels are sold for as
little as one dollar, with the bill of sale scratched out on a cocktail napkin. In a recent sale of a
Florida fishing vessel, the new owner from Michigan purchased the vessel sight-unseen on E-bay
for one dollar. It was likely that the previous owner failed to mention that the vessel was
recently cited by federal authorities for pollution violations which were not corrected prior to the
sale. Buyer beware.
Frequently the identification of the actual owner is a challenge. Proper paperwork may not have
been submitted to the government, owner addresses may be incorrect or out of date, the owner
may be incarcerated, and some owners make claims of having sold their vessel to unidentifiable
third-parties. Often the owners of some derelict vessels move frequently themselves and are not
able to be located. Maintaining copies of all ownership documents, searches, and notifications is
legally important to demonstrate appropriate efforts were completed should an owner later make
claim to their property. Even once located, most owners of derelict vessels lack the financial
means to mitigate the problems their vessels pose.
Proper owner documentation efforts are also important for government entities that take final
action without the owner’s consent or over the owner’s objection. Such actions are considered a
government “taking” and involve significant legal liability. A complete record of ownership
search and/or notification can reduce this liability. Also the identified owner(s) may be asked to
sign a notification letter indicating that they are aware that unless appropriate action is taken on a
vessel, the government will take actions to remove a threat up to and including destruction of the
vessel.

Finally, owner identification and notification is important as the legal authorities allowing the
government to remove or destroy a vessel have clauses holding the owner liable for all removal
costs. Ownership is significant for establishing liability, ultimately the owner is responsible for
their vessel, and any fines, cleanup, or removal costs associated with their vessel. In addition, all
federal authorities authorizing removal / destruction funds require that reimbursement from the
owner be sought.
Removal Authority
Removal authority is a necessary tool for any federal, state, or local government seeking to rid
their waters of derelict vessels. At the federal level, laws specifically focused on vessel
abandonment are limited; there are several laws which can reduce the threats posed by such
vessels. These include the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) as amended by the
Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA), the Refuge Act, and the Abandoned Barge Act.
FWPCA and CERCLA authority can be used to remove the oil and chemical threats onboard a
vessel to mitigate or even prevent a potential spill or release. Additionally the FWPCA can be
used to remove and if necessary destroy a vessel if, in the opinion of the Federal On-Scene
Coordinator (FOSC), it is the best option to mitigate the oil threat posed. The Coast Guard
processes an average of about 10 -12 such removal/destruction cases nation-wide each year.
The Refuse Act (33 USC 407) is an older, (1899) catch-all act designed to prevent refuge from
entering U.S. waters and interfering with navigation. However, this act would normally apply to
material discharged from a vessel rather than the vessel itself. The Abandoned Barge Act is
useful for U.S. barges greater than 100 gross tons and provides for a civil penalty for
abandonment assuming the owner can be located and has the means to pay. The ABA main
shortcomings are that it applies only to barges and that it lacks any funding mechanism to pay for
removal of an abandoned barge.
One removal authority of note is that held by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under
33 Code of Federal Regulations 245. The Corps has authority to remove vessels that impede
navigation of federal waterways. This authority is broad and subject to the USACE’s
determination of navigational threat, as well as the availability of Corps resources. The funding
for removals is limited as it is carried out using only the Corps annual Congressional budget
appropriation.
States and local governments may also have useful laws regarding derelict vessels or more
commonly have laws against abandonment of property which may be applied to vessels. Such
laws may offer greater flexibility than applicable federal laws.
Funding sources
While several state, local, federal laws offer the authority to mitigate the threats from derelict
vessels, fewer offer the needed financial backing to do so. This is especially true if complete
removal/ destruction of a vessel is being considered. Federal laws allowing for
removal/destruction (FWPCA, CERCLA, 33CFR 245) have significant requirements that must
be met before allowing for removal. FWPCA and CERCLA both require an imminent threat to

the environment and FOSC determination that removal is necessary to remove the threat. 33
CFR 245 requires that the vessel be a threat to navigation, and Corps removal funding is limited
to the Corps general budget.
State and local funding must normally be derived from general agency budgets vice specific
removal funds. Such expenses can be daunting for most state/local governments given that
vessels environmental cleanup and disposal costs can range from the upper tens of thousands of
dollars to the hundreds of thousands of dollars or more.
Some states have examined removal funding by proposing taxing state recreational vessels
and/or commercial vessels with a state license. The State of Hawaii for example looked at a tax
to cover removal costs for vessels that ground in sensitive environmental areas. The state
however declined to pursue such legislation after learning that historical data showed the
majority of grounding was by foreign fishing vessels. The state was unwilling to tax state
fisherman for removal costs incurred by foreign citizens.
Environmental Cleanup
Environmental cleanup costs are normally the most costly expenses incurred for a derelict vessel,
second only perhaps to the costs associated with dismantling a vessel. Fuel oils, lube oils, oil
based paints, Freon, ammonia, and asbestos all require laborious and time intensive cleaning
prior to final disposal. Fortunately, funding is available for these pollutants under FWPCA and
CERCLA. Both funds can be used for their appropriate oil or hazardous material threats with the
federal government picking up the tab. Communities desiring to remove derelict vessels can at
least achieve a partial solution by joining with the federal government to have the pollutants
removed, which then may leave the state or local government to deal with the final disposal of
the vessel’s structure. The removal of contaminants from a vessel although costly is not the final
expense for environmental cleanup. Removed pollutants must be handled and disposed of in
accordance with state and federal laws (CERCLA, RCRA, etc.).
Additional environmental cleanup consideration is necessary if the final disposition is to be via
an EPA ocean dumping permit, for disposal at sea. EPA permit requirements apply to the
requestor, either the owner or the government, and are listed in 40 CDR 220. Vessels destined
for the ocean bottom must first meet the EPA’s stringent disposal standards and be cleaned “to
the maximum extent practicable all materials which may degrade the environment…” (40 CFR
229.3(a)(4)).
Disposal Methods
A major consideration is the ultimate disposition of the vessel’s structure. A vessel’s hull and
structure may be designed using wood, steel, or fiberglass each posing unique dismantling and
disposal issues. Options normally include landfills, scrap recycling, and disposal at sea (ocean
dumping). Hauling vessel in pieces to an appropriately designated landfill is a straightforward
process that involves breaking the ship and transporting the parts. This is an effective process
for smaller vessels as well as for wooden or fiberglass vessels. Difficulties include locating
close/cost effective hazardous material landfills to accept potentially oiled materials, as well as
compliance with hazardous material requirements. Ship breaking can be completed easily

enough with commonly available construction equipment. Wooden vessels may also be burned
as a disposal option with first ensuring compliance with government air quality requirements.
Scrap recycling may be accomplished with steel vessels of any size should the scrap value of the
steel exceed the cost of relocating and scrapping of the vessel. Scrapping normally takes place
only after environmental cleanup has been completed. If environmental cleanup is included into
the scrapping costs, scrapping is often not considered as a viable solution. Scrapping can most
easily be accomplished in areas where the vessel can be dragged up a beach and mechanically
dissected using cutting and specialized heavy equipment. Considerations include scrape steel
prices, environmental laws, worker health and safety concerns, and availability of scrapping
locations and equipment.
Ocean dumping is another option, but one with strict controls via the EPA’s ocean dumping
permits. Permits are required as per 40 CFR 220. Vessels dumped in the ocean require
extensive cleaning and must be sea-worthy enough to be towed offshore to a disposal location.
Coordination and execution of stability, towing, and controlled sinking operations demands
experienced personnel with appropriate equipment, which makes ocean dumping an expensive
option.
Ocean dumping permits are filed by the applicant at least 30 days in advance, may require a
$1000 dollar processing fee, and requires coordination with the local Coast Guard Sector office
for filing of a tow plan and any other safety or operational controls. Ocean dumping is ideal for
larger, steel vessels where the steel recycling benefits do not cover the costs of manual labor
and/or specialized equipment required. The ex-Navy vessel USS ORISKANY, for example, was
sunk off the coast of Pensacola, Florida in May 2006 using a similar process.
Given all these considerations, vessel removal success stories and best practices abound. These
include several state programs and federal-state partnerships. One such partnership is that which
exists between the U.S. Coast Guard and the State of Washington’s Department of Natural
Resources. Together this federal-state partnership has produced results in Operation Trash
Compactor, and specifically with the motor vessels FAL-91 and HERON.
Operation Trash Compactor
Coast Guard Sector Seattle implemented a program in November of 2005 to identify and monitor
derelict vessels in Puget Sound. The program was named “Operation Trash Compactor” as a
tongue in cheek reference to the program’s mission of prioritizing the vessels based on their
potential for polluting, and removing the oil and HAZMAT from those vessels posing the highest
risk. The Coast Guard Auxiliary visits each of the identified vessels and collects information on
newly reported derelict vessels during multi-mission harbor patrols. The frequency of visits to
each vessel ranges from a week to several months depending on its’ assigned priority. The
priority is based on several factors including hull condition, position in the water, how the vessel
is secured, threat as a hazard to navigation, public safety concerns and visibility to the public
(enclosure 1).
The program tracks the status of each derelict vessel in a Microsoft Access database. The
original list was based on a Washington Department of Natural Resources (WA DNR) derelict

vessels database and included over 200 vessels. The Coast Guard removed vessels located
outside of the Sector Seattle area of responsibility from the database and verified the list through
field patrols. The corrected database currently contains 78 vessels. The Coast Guard works
closely with WA DNR to maintain the list and determine which vessels should be targeted for
removal. The cost of raising a vessel and removing the pollution is significantly greater than the
cost of removing the oil and HAZMAT before the vessel sinks. Roughly a third of federally
funded pollution responses in Puget Sound involved derelict vessels in fiscal year 2006 and
expenditures from the OSLTF and CERCLA for derelict vessel response exceeded $140K.
One challenge to the Operation Trash Program is maintaining multiple databases and avoiding
duplicate reporting. Derelict vessels are often poorly marked and may not have names or
registration numbers visible on the hull to differentiate them from other vessels in the area. The
same vessel may be reported to the Coast Guard multiple times and result in more than one entry
for the same vessel. One solution being considered is to affix each vessel with brightly colored
signage including the unique database identification number and the number for the National
Response Center in case the vessel is observed adrift, sinking or discharging oil.
Another challenge is that pollution potential is difficult to determine from just an outside
inspection of the hull. A vessel may be in visibly poor condition and be reported by the Coast
Guard Auxiliary as a high priority. Safety protocols prohibit the Auxiliary members from
boarding derelict vessels, so a visit by the active duty Coast Guard or WA DNR is required to
accurately assess the amount of fuel and HAZMAT on board.
M/V FAL-91 (aka KOPCAKOE)
The Coast Guard and the WA DNR have developed a close partnership that utilizes both of their
separate authorities; the Coast Guard’s authority to access federal funds to remove oil or
HAZMAT from a vessel that is posing a substantial threat of pollution, and WA DNR’s authority
to take possession of a vessel through their derelict vessel program. The motor vessel FAL-91,
also known as the KOPCAKOE, is a 186 foot long former Russian trawler that was handled
jointly by these two agencies.

M/V FAL-91 (aka KOPCAKOE)
The vessel was purchased by a private citizen as a live-aboard and had been moved around Puget
Sound for a number of years before it was beached in a mud flat in Totten Inlet, WA in
September 2005. Totten Inlet has a very active shellfish industry that is dependant on high water
quality standards. At the time the FAL-91 was beached, the Coast Guard placed a Captain of the
Port hold on the vessel, requiring the owner to submit a tow plan before moving the vessel. The
Coast Guard received calls from concerned residents in May of 2007 that the owner was
attempting to tow the vessel out of the mudflats at night with no running lights. Local law
enforcement and the Coast Guard make several visits to the vessel and found it to be moved but
the owner not onboard. The vessel was found to be in a severe state of disrepair with an
accumulation of oil and HAZMAT onboard. The vessel had a list of 10 degrees and several
holes were noted in the hull close to the waterline. Based on the state of the vessel and the
inability to determine the intentions of the owner, the Coast Guard deemed that the vessel posed
a substantial threat of pollution and hired Global Diving & Salvage to secure the anchor chain in
a down position by welding it directly to the deck. The Coast Guard also issued orders requiring
the owner to have all pollutants removed from the vessel.

Hazmat onboard the M/V FAL-91
The owner was eventually contacted and indicated that he did not have the financial means to
pay for the pollution removal. The Coast Guard hired Global Diving and Salvage to remove
3000 gallons of fuel and oil, 1500 gallons of oily water and 3 cubic meters of HAZMAT. Once
the pollution was removed, WA DNR began a process of taking custody of the vessel. The
owner attempted to resume custody of the vessel but was unable to repay WA DNR the cost of
structural repairs that were made. WA DNR had the FAL-91 towed to Commencement Bay,
Tacoma, where it remains today.
M/V HERON
The HERON is a steel construction fishing / cable laying vessel built in 1945. It is
approximately 141 feet long by 34 feet wide. The HERON is located in the Snohomish River,
Everett, WA. In March of 2005, the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) was accessed to
respond to a discharge of oil from the HERON and approximately 38,000 gallons of oily water
was removed. Later that same year, a party interested in the scrap value of the vessel directed
and paid for a contractor to remove thousands of gallons of oily water from the HERON again.
A portion of the bow section and a significant amount of deck and machinery equipment were
removed, but the party later rescinded their salvage request. In February 2006, the vessel was
found to be beached as it had been in 2003, holed and discharging oil. The Coast Guard
contracted National Response Corporation Environmental Services to conduct the clean-up and
over 80,000 gallons of oily water was removed.

M/V HERON
It was becoming apparent that the derelict vessel had become a waste oil dump site and would
pose an ongoing threat to the environment if left in the current location. The Coast Guard
forwarded a vessel destruction request for the approval of the Commandant of the Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard Commandant determined that removal and destruction of the vessel was
appropriate in order to mitigate the substantial pollution threat. The destruction of the M/V
HERON is an example of where the Coast Guard, in a limited number of case’s, decides to
remove and/or destroy a vessel, under the authority provided in the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (FWPCA). Global Diving & Salvage (Global) has been hired to remove all
pollutants and dismantle the vessel. Global estimates that the following pollutants are currently
on board: Asbestos, batteries, paint, solvent, grease, fire extinguishers, oily bilge water, bunker
fuel, diesel fuel, hydraulic oil, and other oils. The work is scheduled to start in early September
2007 and continue for five to six weeks.
One roadblock to the destruction of the HERON was the discovery of an Osprey next at the top
of the vessel’s mast. The nest could not be disturbed while fledgling birds were still in the next.
Through the cooperation of multiple agencies and stake-holders, the top of the mast was cut off
and relocated to another part of the property prior to the Osprey nesting season. The nest is
currently occupied by a pair of Osprey with two young.

M/V HERON- View of oily water mixture in hold

References:
Boring, Christine Lord and Zelo, Ian J.; Review of State Abandoned and Derelict Vessel
Programs, October 2006,
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/1295_AVP_State_Review_12_2006.pdf.

IOSC Options for Vessel Removal

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to IOSC Options for Vessel Removal

Similar to IOSC Options for Vessel Removal (20)

IOSC Options for Vessel Removal