Preservation advocates press environmental and procedural questions about SS United States; commissioners promise follow‑up

Steve Perry, vice president of the SS United States Preservation Foundation, used the May 5 public‑comment period to renew concerns about the county’s handling of the preservation project and to raise a series of environmental and procedural questions.

Perry said a recent private meeting with county employees left him feeling “ambushed” and alleged unprofessional conduct by some county staff. He also told commissioners the county had not performed environmental testing or addressed regulatory frameworks he considers relevant, citing the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Ocean Dumping Act, and the Endangered Species Act.

“I was not even given the opportunity to ask my questions,” Perry said earlier in the meeting, and later told the board he had provided the county with a 70‑page report from subject‑matter experts and asserted the county had done no testing to corroborate or refute that material. He urged the board to require the applicant to address those laws and any necessary environmental review.

Board members responded that they would follow up. One commissioner apologized that Perry felt mistreated and said the board would investigate. Others emphasized the need to ground future discussions in documented facts and existing regulatory requirements before directing staff action. Commissioner Mixon asked staff to look into details and said the board would take complaints about staff conduct seriously.

Separately, Commissioner Mixon asked that staff provide an estimated scrap value for the SS United States and a monthly docking cost so the board can assess stewardship options; county staff agreed to return with a fiscal estimate. Perry urged fuller, documented environmental assessments; commissioners said they would request factual follow‑up and consider whether further reviews are necessary.

The board did not take a formal vote on the ship during the May 5 meeting but committed to reviewing the concerns and to producing financial estimates requested by commissioners.