Beware 'ghost fleet'.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Officials and citizens in both Coos Bay and Newport should ask tough questions, demand clear answers and proceed with extreme caution as a Virginia-based company considers locating a ship-breaking yard in one of the two communities.

It would be difficult for any community, particularly Oregon coastal towns that have been hit hard by the decline of once-vibrant fishing and timber industries, to resist the entreaties of any prospective employer that promises to invest millions in new facilities and to employ as many as 125 workers at wages of up to $30 an hour.

But caution, even skepticism, is in order as two Oregon communities - cities with environmentally sensitive estuaries that are home to fishing, shellfish harvesting and marine research - consider the establishment of potentially disruptive ship-salvage operations.

Last month, The (Portland) Oregonian reported that Virginia-based Bay Bridge Enterprises was negotiating to acquire an industrial site in Newport's Yaquina Bay, where it hoped to tow mothballed naval and merchant vessels from San Francisco Bay. After arriving in Newport, the ships would be dismantled, and the scrap steel eventually sold on the international market.

After Port of Newport and local Chamber of Commerce officials announced the project and an ambitious time line calling for approval this month, local residents and environmental groups voiced understandable alarm about potential damage from hazardous wastes and invasive species. Port officials wisely slowed the pace of negotiations.

Then last week, The Oregonian reported that Bay Bridge was negotiating for an alternative location - a 216-acre former pulp mill site near Coos Bay. As in Newport, the potential arrival of the West Coast's first ship-breaking yard generated both vocal support and opposition.

Officials in both communities should carefully weigh the potential for environmental damage from the leakage of hazardous wastes ranging from bunker fuel to asbestos. They should also consider the inevitable damage to local bays and rivers from the introduction of exotic marine species that the ships may carry on their deeply encrusted hulls.

Project supporters point out that Bay Bridge's salvage operation in Virginia's Elizabeth River has a good environmental record. But they often neglect to mention that the river is heavily polluted and a far cry from the relatively pristine waters of Yaquina and Coos bays.

Meanwhile, local officials should ask themselves why Bay Bridge is intent on locating its ship-breaking yard more than 500 miles from San Francisco Bay, where the corroding "ghost fleet" is now located.

The answers to that question are not flattering to Oregon - and have little to do with trained work forces or this state's vaunted quality of life. Here are a couple of hints: California's tough environmental regulations require ship-breaking to be done in dry dock, where threats such as toxic spills and invasive species can better be contained, while Oregon's allow ships to be dismantled while moored in the water. While dry-dock work requires hiring union labor, less expensive nonunion workers can be used to dismantle ships in moorage.

Oregon's struggling coastal communities need good-paying jobs. But before eagerly embracing a ship-breaking yard in their midst, they should take a hard, unflinching look - and first count the costs.