STORIS Museum shares final meeting minutes

Here are the final, approved minutes for the STORIS Museum. In recent weeks, the board officers have been working through the various steps to terminate the existence of the nonprofit. The minutes discuss the aspects of the ship’s disposal and the distribution of the museum’s remaining assets. The minutes can be accessed here: http://goo.gl/DT9srn

MARAD releases third set of documents; more questions arise

The U.S. Maritime Administration has sent a third set of documents related to the original Nov. 4, 2013 Freedom of Information Act request.

Once again, redaction has stricken key elements of information from the documents. As before, with all the agencies that have responded to this point, MARAD is using Exemption 5 for deliberative, pre-process discussion as well as attorney-client privilege. Much of this information would have direct bearing on how MARAD handled the STORIS situation and is key to gaining a full understanding of how the ship was allowed to be sold and exported. All of these points will have to be argued on appeal for the redaction and withholding of information. If these officials did nothing wrong and their decisions were sound, then why are they withholding information? The correspondence between MARAD officials regarding STORIS is also marked as “low importance,” which says a lot about their attitude about the ship and the related situation.

Pg 2-3 – There is discussion among MARAD officials regarding the ship’s departure and whether or not the ship is truly free of regulated PCBs. MARAD officials claim that they are not responsible for the issues related to STORIS as the ship belonged to the U.S. Coast Guard and she was merely a “custody ship” at the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet. Therefore, it is MARAD’s position that the regulations and court-ordered procedures for issues such as hull cleaning for invasive species and removal of potential pollution did not apply to STORIS. A lot of this communication is a matter of MARAD officials covering themselves to absolve the agency and those involved from any kind of wrongdoing.

The fact that MARAD officials themselves seemed to be questioning whether STORIS was actually free of regulated PCBs is important. I think they knew that the ship had to have some kind of contamination that would have been problematic for excessing and foreign dismantling. How could they not know, considering it’s their job to handle obsolete ships, many of which were of the same type of construction and vintage as STORIS?

Conspicuously absent in all of this correspondence is any reference to Section 3502 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of 2009 which set into federal law the requirement that U.S. government vessels have to be dismantled in U.S. ship recycling facilities. STORIS was allowed to be exported for dismantling in a substandard scrap facility in Ensenada. MARAD officials should also have recognized that it was illegal for GSA to sell STORIS at auction because her tonnage exceeded 1,500 tons. This was a violation of 40 U.S.C. 548 (http://goo.gl/uVDtHa). Whether this is part of the redacted information for deliberative or attorney-client privilege remains to be seen. Regardless, the federal government VIOLATED the very laws they were supposed to be following. As indicated in earlier posts on March 12 and May 9, Denise Rucker Krepp, former chief counsel for MARAD, has identified these violations.

On page 3, there is a comment regarding Jeff Siragusa of MARAD inspecting STORIS and making note of “a lot of new wiring.” While this may be true, that there was new wiring in many locations on the ship, particularly the main control board, there was also a substantial quantity of old wiring. We know it was there based on sworn statements provided by two key members of the ship’s last crew, an EM2 and BMC. This old wiring was conveniently ignored by the Coast Guard in declaring the ship “free of regulated PCBs” and it was apparently ignored by Jeff Siragusa.  The rest of the comment regarding Siragusa was redacted by MARAD as “pre-decision, deliberative process” protected. What does it say, that the wiring looked fine, posed no problem and the ship was clean? What is MARAD hiding with the redaction? Again, this gets to the very core of the information that we are seeking regarding the government’s assessment and disposal of STORIS.

Last fall, I had spoken with Gary Whitney, the general manager of the Mare Island Ship Yard. He told me that he walked away from bidding on STORIS as a potential scrap project because it was readily apparent to him that there was a lot of old wiring on the ship as well as other materials that likely harbored hazardous materials. Again, when I asked him about the presence of PCBs on board STORIS, his reply was that he didn't actually test for PCBs, but he saw enough to believe they were there. He said that if the Mexicans were going to look for PCBs, they would find them. Apparently the Mexicans really weren't looking for PCBs or at least not very hard.

It is interesting to note that Jeff Siragusa was vice-president and program manager at a ship recycling business known as North American Ship Recycling (NASR) located at the old Bethlehem Steel Sparrows Point (Baltimore, MD) shipyard. In 2007, NASR was targeted by a lawsuit filed by Clean Venture, an environmental remediation contractor that did not receive payment for two vessels being scrapped. Elements of the lawsuit involved accusations under federal racketeering laws. NASR seemingly disappeared in the middle of the night, leaving behind a controversy and two partially dismantled ships, the USS HOIST (ARS-40) and the USS SPHINX (ARL-24).  Both ships were determined to contain hazardous materials, particularly the SPHINX, which was identified as containing waste oil, lead paint and PCBs.

The Hampton Roads Pilot (Virginia), published stories related to the debacle as it involved several ships from the James River Reserve Fleet:

http://hamptonroads.com/node/422181

http://hamptonroads.com/2007/12/scrap-destination-changes-4-ships-%2526%2523039%3Bghost-fleet%2526%2523039%3B

The Baltimore Sun also has several stories in its archives related to NASR, its creation and its disappearance.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/keyword/barletta

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2007-11-02/news/0711020187_1_barletta-nasr-maritime-administration

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2007-11-20/business/0711200121_1_barletta-ship-recycling-maritime-administration

The suit was settled confidentially in late December 2007 before it made it into court.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2007-12-29/business/0712290364_1_barletta-sparrows-clean-venture

In the stories, MARAD officials are quoted in regard to the problems that the NASR shutdown and associated controversy caused for the government:

“The U.S. Maritime Administration, which oversees the fleet, said in a statement Thursday that it is ‘disappointed’ by the sudden closure.

‘All rights and remedies available to the agency related to those contracts, and NASR's failure to perform under those contracts, are being pursued, but cannot be discussed,’ according to the statement released by Susan Clark, an agency spokeswoman.” – Shipyard closure sinks plan for 6 ‘Ghost Fleet’ ships – Scott Harper, Pilot Online 11/9/07

The situation couldn’t have caused too much trouble for MARAD if they turned around and hired Jeff Siragusa from the wayward firm to be a Contracting Officer Technical Representative for MARAD. His name shows up in a search of MARAD ship disposal documents from 2009-10 with a Washington, DC, phone number. Now he’s apparently in California. I wonder how other private ship scrapping firms felt to have a former competitor working for the government for the very agency from which they relied on to purchase ships or bid on contracts for shipbreaking, their very lifeblood?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contracting_Officer's_Technical_Representative

There is also some sarcasm related to U.S. Metals Recovery actually taking the ship from the SBRF, with a comment from William Cahill of MARAD stating “I guess they mean it this time.” So apparently, there were previous false starts and failures to move the ship to the annoyance of MARAD officials.

Pages 7-26 involved internal MARAD communications in response to a message I sent MARAD’s chief counsel on Oct. 29, the Monday following STORIS’ departure from Suisun Bay. Again, it is a matter of putting together a consistent, united front to address my inquiry as well as the other inquiries that might come in from the media or Congressional officials.

Pages 27-28 discuss STORIS, GLACIER and PLANETREE (but not IRIS) and their situation within the SBRF, MARAD custody and Coast Guard ownership.

National Register effort of 2012 successful, bittersweet

Two years ago, we were busy pulling together the nomination paperwork to have STORIS listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Our efforts were successful and the ship was officially recognized as nationally significant with her listing on Dec. 31, 2012.

Just a few short months later, the same U.S. government that recognized the ship as nationally significant and supposedly worthy of preservation sold her to a shady scrap merchant who then held the ship hostage in an extortion scheme over the summer. The government then allowed the ship to be illegally exported for dismantling in Mexico.

We are left to ask WHY?

This was no ordinary ship... This was STORIS, Queen of the Fleet, Bulldog of the Bering and Galloping Ghost of the Alaskan Coast.

It is sad to read knowing her ultimate fate, but her exploits and history are forever enshrined in the National Register documents. Section 7, uploaded at http://goo.gl/1FkXPF, is a physical description of the ship as well as a description of the ship's evolution over time. Section 8, uploaded at http://goo.gl/DBK8Oe, is the narrative history of the ship.

If you haven't already done so, please read these documents to fully understand what we have lost. We should be walking her decks and admiring fresh paint in preparation for a triumphant return to Toledo where she was born. Instead, we only have black and white on paper to remember her. And for this is why we fight.

Federal Inspectors General send letter of complaint to Congress

Apparently I am not the only one who is having trouble getting information from the Obama Administration. Forty-seven inspectors general submitted a letter to House and Senate Oversight Committee chairs and ranking members of Congress, warning of serious challenges coming from within the government agencies that the IGs are supposed to be monitoring. These agencies are stalling efforts to secure information from what is supposed to be "the most transparent government" in U.S. history. The Inspectors General allege that the agencies are claiming privacy issues, attorney-client privilege and other dubious exemptions to deny the release of information the IGs request in the interests of monitoring government operations and actions. The agencies are also reportedly encumbering the requests with overly burdensome administrative and bureaucratic hurdles, preventing timely responses from the Inspectors General.

This fits the same modus operandi of the federal agencies that have been insolent and uncooperative with us as we look for answers with the STORIS situation. Not only that, but these agencies have essentially ignored official inquiries from Congressmen and Senators related to STORIS. The comparative handful of documents that we have received so far demonstrate a deliberate and constructive effort to create a consolidated front to deflect inquiries from Congressional leaders who have attempted to get answers from EPA, GSA, the Coast Guard and MARAD.

There also seems to be an across-the-board mentality that these agencies are above reproach. I recently read stories where federal agencies told Congressional observers, including Senators and members of the House of Representatives, that they were not allowed to photograph illegal migrants at the southern border during this ongoing crisis with unaccompanied minors flooding into the country. Seriously? Federal agency bureaucrats telling lawmakers they’re not allowed to take pictures?

If the Inspector Generals can’t get information from the Federal Government, what hope does the average citizen have to get answers?

It is rather ironic that Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma was a direct recipient of the letter since he is one of two senators -- the other being former Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina -- who were directly responsible for blocking the donation of STORIS to the STORIS Museum through Congressional action. And whose face pops up with the story link below? Coburn.

Stories:

Dozens of Inspectors general say federal government hindering oversight - Washington Post
 
Agency watchdogs tell lawmakers that officials stonewalled probes - The Hill

‘Serious limitations’: Gov’t watchdogs unite in letter slamming Obama administration transparency - Fox News

The letter can be read in its entirety here.

MARAD sends second partial release of STORIS info

As stated last week, another FOIA release has been received from the US Maritime Administration. The cover letter is here: http://goo.gl/0Jc2r1 and the documents are here: http://goo.gl/0hqc9f.

Overall, it is safe to say that MARAD FOIA officials were too heavy with their redactions. Big surprise.

There are over 100 pages in this release. However, the information as a whole is not exactly helpful and raises more questions as over 60 pages involve documents to/from the U.S. Coast Guard and these pages were redacted. An additional three pages involved GSA and those, too, were withheld. These documents have supposedly been forwarded by MARAD to the respective agencies to determine whether or not the information can be released and, if so, those agencies will release the information to me.

Not very promising, considering that GSA is now 48 days late in providing the materials from the FOIA that I sent specifically to that agency nine months ago yesterday. GSA FOIA officials assured me that the information would be received on or before June 18 after they decided to waive over $10,000 in fees associated with the request. The Coast Guard has also not been cooperative, withholding information or just being deceitful in what has been provided so far.

It is interesting that they withheld letters from the California State Lands Commission (pg 102-103), which likely related to the state’s interests with bottomlands conservation and invasive species safeguards. A FOIA request has been submitted to the State of California for any information the State Lands Commission may have on STORIS. As you know, she was towed directly from Suisun Bay to Ensenada without having her bottom inspected or cleaned for invasive species.

http://www.slc.ca.gov/spec_pub/mfd/ballast_water/Ballast_Water_Default.html

The FOIA submitted to the California State Lands Commission is here: http://goo.gl/45N2KK

 Additional information is redacted because of the "deliberative process" privilege, which allows the government to withhold information based on the position that MARAD officials were discussing how they were going to handle policy and procedure. The problem is, much of the information that we need to have answered as to how and why the ship was allowed to be illegally sold and illegally exported would be part of that discussion. As pointed out in other appeals, it is the burden of the agency to explain how information withheld based on the deliberative process fits in to their decision-making process and ultimately, if the withheld information was factored into the final decision, it has to be released. An appeal will be filed including that position from our perspective.

It’s also very hard for the government to argue that there is no public interest or benefit in releasing this information.

I am very curious as to how the documentation in the MARAD release corresponds with what the CG has released. I suspect that there is paperwork in the MARAD release, though redacted and useless, that was not acknowledged by the CG in its FOIA response to me.

Some highlights:

On Pg 9 – there is a reference to clearance from the U.S. State Department in relation to the ship being exported. That raises some additional questions as to what the State Department had to do with STORIS’ export. I will have to pursue that further. It may have been something to do with International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) or Regional Security and Arms Transfers (RSAT) since STORIS was constructed as a military ship and was being sent out of the country.

Pg 35 – There is a reference by Joe Pecoraro, the superintendent of the MARAD reserve fleet, remarking on the good condition of the ship, that she would have been a good museum ship candidate.

Pg 68 -  A very interesting detail from MARAD: STORIS was the anchor for the row that she was located in at Suisun Bay and her removal required extensive planning and execution. This, combined with other ships scheduled to be removed from the SBRF meant that the ship would not have been able to be moved until Aug 27. This is the first heard of that. The GSA deadline in the auction was July 12, so that conflicts greatly. If the GSA and Coast Guard wanted to get rid of STORIS so badly and so quickly, why wasn’t that worked out/coordinated with MARAD sooner so that it was understood that STORIS wasn’t going to be moved by July 12, just two weeks after the late June auction?

Even so, the ship was not moved in September, then the Coast Guard’s paid rent for the ship ran out at the end of the month. Then the government shutdown went into effect. All the while, the ship’s buyer, Mark Jurisich of U.S. Metals Recovery, was making his plans to illegally export STORIS to Mexico for scrap while trying to extort $250,000 for the ship from the nonprofit STORIS Museum and Last Patrol. That was some 357% more than he paid for her through the questionable GSA auction.

While these dates may explain how Jurisich got away with leaving the ship for so long in the SBRF, it does not explain how he was allowed to buy the ship in the first place, considering the undocumented hazardous materials we strongly believe were on board would have made the sale illegal through federal law. There is also the matter of the ship being illegally sold through GSA, as her tonnage exceeded that of which GSA is allowed to dispose. Instead, MARAD should have handled STORIS’ disposal. Finally, there is the matter of the government allowing STORIS’ export when, as a U.S. military vessel, Section 3502 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of 2009 would have required her scrapping to be handled in the U.S.

Finally, the photos of her sea chests for the blanking are sickening to see as they show what good condition her hull was in.

STORIS did not deserve this.

Captain from "Deadliest Catch" speaks of DC politics hurting AK crabbing industry

Capt. Keith Colburn, master of the F/V WIZARD, spoke to Fox News about the impact of Washington politics on the Alaskan crab industry. Particularly harmful was the spiteful, petty and totally nonproductive government shutdown that lasted most of October 2013. Not only did the shutdown close the necessary regulatory agencies that monitor the crabbing industry, sending the fleet to anchor, the shutdown also closed the agencies that were necessary to intervene with the illegal sale, export and ultimate scrapping of CGC STORIS.

Washington politics did more than hurt STORIS, a true Alaskan legend and national treasure.

Politicians and bureaucrats killed her.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/07/29/deadliest-catchs-keith-colburn-washington-politics-hurt-my-business/?intcmp=features

June-July update: OGIS, USCG and MARAD discussions

I have been busy with a major project the last few weeks and have had limited Internet access.

I offer a brief update: I had correspondence in June with the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) regarding the difficulty in securing information from the Coast Guard. I submitted an appeal to the CG on June 28 related to the correspondence released. It was pointed out in the appeal that there is known documentation that exists related to STORIS that the CG did not re...lease as a matter of the FOIA response. The appeal has been uploaded here: http://goo.gl/jZeR20. OGIS has indicated that they will open a case when my appeals are exhausted with the Coast Guard.

Today, July 28, MARAD released over 100 pages of documents related to my original Nov. 4 FOIA. The materials have to be read carefully to fully understand exactly what is there, but they will be posted sometime soon. From a quick readthrough, a lot is not helpful as some 60+ pages are documents that originated with the Coast Guard. They were redacted by MARAD and turned over to the USCG FOIA officials to make a determination as to whether or not the information can be released. There are also three or four pages related to GSA documents. Much of what is there is redacted because of the "deliberative process" privilege, again allowing the government to withhold information based on the position that they were discussing how they were going to handle policy and procedure. The problem is, much of the information that we need to have answers as to how and why the ship was allowed to be illegally sold and illegally exported would be in that discussion.

Through the reports and photos included in the FOIA release, it is clear -- and even stated so by the MARAD supervisor at Suisun Bay -- that STORIS was in excellent shape. There are several photos of the ship's sea chests being sealed and her hull was flawless. 

That STORIS was allowed to be destroyed continues to be inexplicable and inexcusable.