U.S. NAVY OCEAN DUMPING PROGRAM 

PETITION TO EPA TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT FROM 

UNREASONABLE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE NAVY’S SINKING EXERCISE PROGRAM (SINKEX)

SUBMITTED BY:

BASEL ACTION NETWORK

SIERRA CLUB

AND

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

APRIL 2012

Jim Puckett

Executive Director

Basel Action Network

206 First Avenue S., Suite 410

Seattle, WA 98104

P: 206.652.5555 │ F: 206.652.5750

www.ban.org

David A. Scott

Vice President

Sierra Club

85 Second Street, Second Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

P: 415.977.5500 │ F: 415.977.5799

www.sierraclub.org

Emily Jeffers

Staff Attorney, Oceans Program

Center for Biological Diversity

351 California St, Suite 600

San Francisco, CA 94104

P: 415.632.5309 │ F: 415.436.9683

www.biologicaldiversity.org 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PETITION TO EPA: REQUEST FOR ACTION ...........................................................................1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................2

BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................5

I. THE GENERAL PERMIT FOR SINKEX IS OUTDATED AND BASED ON 

INADEQUATE INFORMATION ........................................................................5

II. THE MARINE DISPOSAL OF PCBS VIA SINKEX POSES SIGNIFICANT 

RISKS TO HUMAN HEALTH AND THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT.........6

A. PCBs Are A Highly Toxic And Pervasive Pollutant ..............................6

B. PCBs From Sunk Vessels Leach Into The Marine Environment........9

C. PCBs May Be Transported From The Deep Ocean To Shallow 

Marine Ecosystems .................................................................................13

D. Past Navy Studies Finding No Risk From PCBs On SINKEX 

Vessels Have Been Discredited Or Conclusively Contradicted ........16

III. FEDERAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW STRICTLY REGULATE THE 

DISPOSAL OF PCBS IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT...........................20

A. Federal Law Requires EPA To Protect Human Health And The 

Marine Environment From PCB Contamination. ..............................20

B. International Law Governing Ocean Dumping ..................................23

IV. EPA IS VIOLATING FEDERAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW BY 

ALLOWING THE MARINE DISPOSAL OF PCBS VIA SINKEX.................26

A. The SINKEX General Permit Fails To Protect Human Health And 

The Marine Environment And Is Inconsistent With The MPRSA 

Criteria......................................................................................................26

B. TSCA Waiver For SINKEX Is Not Warranted. ..................................29

C. Additional Study Is Needed to Determine the Full Effects of PCBs 

on SINKEX Vessels.................................................................................31

D. SINKEX Remediation Standards Are Unlawful And Do Not Meet 

Requirements Of International Law ....................................................31

ACTIONS NEEDED TO CORRECT EPA’S LEGAL VIOLATIONS ......................................33

SOURCES.....................................................................................................................................35

APPENDIX..................................................................................................................................... I
1

PETITION TO EPA: REQUEST FOR ACTION

The Basel Action Network, Sierra Club, and Center for Biological Diversity petition the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take immediate action to protect human health 

and the marine environment from polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) that leach from ships sunk 

through the Navy’s sinking exercise (SINKEX) program as required by the Marine Protection, 

Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)1 and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).2 

Specifically, pursuant to the petition provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act3 and 

TSCA,4the Basel Action Network, Sierra Club, and Center for Biological Diversity request that 

EPA amend the existing MPRSA permit for SINKEX or, in the alternative, enact TSCA rules:

1. Effective immediately, requiring all PCB-contaminated materials in 

concentrations of 50 parts per million or greater to be removed from 

SINKEX vessels prior to sinking; 

2. Requiring all PCB-contaminated materials in concentrations of less 

than 50 parts per million to be removed from SINKEX vessels prior

to sinking to the maximum extent practicable; and 

3. Requiring additional studies to determine whether PCBcontaminated materials in concentrations of less than 50 parts per 

million constitute “trace” contaminants, such that their dumping 

will not cause undesirable effects including the possibility of 

bioaccumulation. Such additional studies should include the most 

recent data on the toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation of 

PCBs and should include monitoring at multiple recent sink sites. 

Studies should also assess the releases of other potentially 

hazardous pollutants into the marine environment from the SINKEX 

program including heavy metals, asbestos and radioactive 

substances.

 

1

33 U.S.C. §§ 1401–45.

2

15 U.S.C. §§ 2601–92.

3

5 U.S.C. § 553(e). 

4

15 U.S.C. § 2620(a).
2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Navy’s SINKEX program allows the Navy to fire on inactive naval warships to 

practice gunnery and torpedo accuracy, while also disposing of unwanted ships at sea. From 

1970-1999 SINKEX accounted for only 8% of all Navy vessel disposals, but from 2000-2010 it 

accounted for 65% of all disposals. Ocean disposal of obsolete vessels via SINKEX is deemed a 

cost-effective disposal strategy by the Federal government and is permitted by a series of 

exemptions from existing environmental laws. EPA acknowledges that these vessels are sunk 

while still containing toxic materials within their composition, including asbestos, 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), iron, lead paint and antifouling paint, yet EPA allows 

exemptions for SINKEX to various ocean dumping laws that would normally forbid the ocean 

disposal of such contaminants. These exemptions are contrary to the requirements of the 

MPRSA and TSCA and ignore obligations under international law. 

The negative health and environmental impacts of PCBs are well-known. PCBs are 

persistent bioaccumulative chemicals that have demonstrated carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects on animals and humans. PCBs are non-flammable and chemically stable, so 

after they are released into the environment they persist for many years.5 Due to their longevity 

as a molecule, and their capacity to be attracted to fatty tissue and accumulate in the marine 

food chain, PCBs are perhaps the greatest concern of all shipboard contaminants. PCBs bind to 

sediments, bioaccumulate in fish and other animals, and biomagnify in the food chain, creating 

hazards at all levels.

New information has demonstrated that PCBs on sunk vessels in concentrations and 

materials allowed by the SINKEX program are released into the environment after sinking and 

pose substantial and unreasonable risks to human health and the marine environment. First, a 

number of ships have been sunk in U.S. waters for the purpose of reef-building. Recently 

 

5 U.S. EPA. PCBs: Cancer Dose-Response Assessment and Application to Environmental Mixtures (1996). 

EPA/600/P-96/001F(1996) available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=12486
3

released data on fish tissue levels of PCBs at one of these sites compared to a reference reef of 

concrete indicate that the reefed ship is likely a source of substantial PCB pollution in fish. This 

data also indicates that the amount of PCBs on sunken vessels likely exceeds by a very large 

amount the amount assumed at the time the current exemptions for SINKEX were granted. 

Second, the only real-world monitoring study on which the existing MPRSA permit and TSCA 

waiver are based is outdated and significantly limited, and is further undermined by the more 

recent results from the artificial reef study. Third, the models upon which existing estimates of 

PCB leaching from SINKEX ships are based are overly simplified and do not include complex 

features of the ecological system, including water density layering, localized currents, upwellings 

and sedimentation. All of these features can be and are affected by the presence of a large 

sunken ship which may in fact dominate the local hydrography. Considering the latest data, the 

current state of knowledge concerning the persistent toxic effects of PCBs, and the available 

information about ecosystem functions, the SINKEX program is not currently operating in a 

manner that adequately protects the marine environment and human health. The existing 

MPRSA permit, and the lack of TSCA regulation, are inadequate and contrary to law.6

Accordingly, BAN, Sierra Club, and Center for Biological Diversity hereby petition EPA 

to amend the existing MPRSA permit to require removal of all materials containing PCBs to the 

maximum extent practicable and to require that no disposed materials contain PCBs in 

concentrations greater than 50 parts per million. In the alternative, BAN, Sierra Club, and 

Center for Biological Diversity petition EPA to enact rules governing the marine disposal of 

PCBs via the SINKEX program that likewise requires removal of all materials containing PCBs 

to the maximum extent practicable and to require that no disposed materials contain PCBs in 

concentrations greater than 50 parts per million. 

Additionally, BAN, Sierra Club, and Center for Biological Diversity petition EPA to 

require additional studies to determine whether PCB-contaminated materials in concentrations 

 

6 Dr. Peter deFur, Environmental Stewardship Concepts, LLC (See Appendix)
4

of less than 50 parts per million constitute “trace” contaminants, such that their dumping will 

not cause undesirable effects including the possibility of bioaccumulation.7 Such additional 

studies should include the most recent data on the toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation of 

PCBs and should include monitoring at multiple recent sink sites. Additional study is warranted 

in light of the shortcomings of the single study on which the current MPRSA permit and TSCA 

waiver are based and in light of the results of the recent data on PCB contamination from an 

artificial reef site in Florida. 

Because the protections BAN, Sierra Club, and Center for Biological Diversity are 

requesting are required under both the MPRSA and TSCA, if EPA grants this petition and 

amends the MPRSA permit to be sufficiently protective of human health and the marine 

environment, then EPA should determine whether a continued exemption under TSCA based on 

the amended MPRSA permit is appropriate. 

This petition is submitted pursuant to both the APA and TSCA: the request that EPA 

amend the MPRSA permit is submitted pursuant to the APA;8 the request that EPA enact rules 

governing the marine disposal of PCBs is submitted pursuant to the citizen’s petition provision 

of TSCA;

9 and the request that EPA conduct additional studies is submitted pursuant to both the 

MPRSA and TSCA. Under the TSCA citizen’s petition provision, EPA must grant or deny this 

petition within 90 days.10 In order to meet this requirement of TSCA, EPA should take steps to 

act on and amend the existing MPRSA permit within the timeframe proscribed by TSCA. If EPA 

fails to act in a timely manner under TSCA, BAN, Sierra Club, and Center for Biological Diversity

may seek review of EPA’s failure to enact adequate regulations under TSCA. 

 

7

See 40 C.F.R. § 227.6. 

8

5 U.S.C. § 553(e); see also 33 U.S.C. § 1414(d); U.S. EPA, Decision Memorandum: EPA Regulation of PCBs on 

Vessels Used for Navy Sinking Exercises (Sept. 7, 1999) (“The Office of Water is prepared to revise the Navy 

permit, or revoke it, in the event that the results offuI1her studies demonstrate an unexpected unacceptable risk to 

human health or the environment from SINKEX.”).

9

15 U.S.C. § 2620(a); see also id. §§ 2603, 2605.

10 Id. § 2620(b)(3).
5

BACKGROUND 

I. THE GENERAL PERMIT FOR SINKEX IS OUTDATED AND BASED ON INADEQUATE 

INFORMATION

In 1977, the EPA issued a general permit for SINKEX under section 102 of the Marine 

Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) that remained in effect for approximately 

twelve years.11 In 1989, the Navy limited the SINKEX program when PCBs were discovered in 

various shipboard components because PCB disposal was a violation of the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA). The Navy worked with the EPA to develop a two-phase research program to 

assess the risks associated with the ocean disposal of PCBs through the SINKEX program and to 

seek an exemption from TSCA. These studies were conducted by the Navy rather than an 

independent third party. In March 1994, the Navy began an ecological assessment based solely 

on available literature on PCB solubility, temperature, and partitioning characteristics, to model 

the risks associated with PCB leaching and concluded that there was “no notable threat to 

benthic organisms”12 resulting from sinking naval vessels at sea (hereinafter the Modeling 

Study).

Based on the results of this study, the Navy and EPA negotiated an agreement in 1996 in 

which the EPA would use its discretion not to enforce TSCA against SINKEX for a limited 

number of SINKEX vessels. Meanwhile, the Navy was required to conduct the Sunken Vessel 

Study to substantiate the findings of the 1994 Modeling Study with empirical data, again paid 

for by the agency seeking exemption. 

In the Spring of 1999 the Navy presented an initial draft of the Sunken Vessel Study to 

the EPA suggesting there was a “lack of evidence of unreasonable risk to human health or the 

environment” from SINKEX. This study assessed the impacts of a single SINKEX vessel, the 

Ex-AGERHOLM, 16 years after the vessel’s 1982 sinking, on the basis of sediment samples taken 

 

11 This permit is codified at 40 C.F.R § 229.2.

12 U.S. EPA, Decision Memorandum: EPA Regulation of PCBs on Vessels Used for Navy Sinking Exercises(Sept. 

7, 1999).
6

at three intervals and a PCB leachability laboratory study based on these sediment samples.13 

Significant uncertainties in that study, however, render problematic any attempt to draw broad 

conclusions from this single study. 

In September 1999, under pressure from the Navy, the EPA Administrator reinstated the 

SINKEX program under a general permit authorized under the MPRSA and determined that 

PCBs on SINKEX vessels should be regulated solely under the MPRSA, rather than both TSCA 

and MPRSA. This determination was made under the authority of section 9(b) of TSCA, which 

provides that if the Administrator determines that a risk to health or the environment associated 

with a chemical substance or mixture could be eliminated or reduced to a sufficient extent by 

actions taken under the authorities contained in other federal laws, the Administrator shall use 

those authorities to protect against such risk unless he determines it is in the public interest to 

take action under TSCA. Under this authority, the Administrator exempted SINKEX from TSCA, 

under the assumption that SINKEX could adequately be regulated solely under MPRSA. EPA 

concluded: “We believe there is no public interest in regulating the transportation and disposal 

of PCBs associated with SINKEX under TSCA...”14 SINKEX activities resumed in 1999 under 

the MPRSA general permit, with a full exemption from TSCA, and continues to operate in this 

fashion to this day.

II. THE MARINE DISPOSAL OF PCBS VIA SINKEX POSES SIGNIFICANT RISKS TO 

HUMAN HEALTH AND THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT.

A. PCBs Are A Highly Toxic And Pervasive Pollutant

PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) are mixtures of synthetic organic chemicals that are 

highly toxic and dangerous to human health: in a 1996 report, prepared at the direction of 

Congress, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that PCBs cause cancer in 

 

13 See Final Report: Risk Assessment of the Potential Release of PCBs and Other Contaminants from Sunken Navy 

Ships in the Deep Ocean: Ex-AGERHOLM Case Study (March 2006), available at

http://www.navsea.navy.mil/teamships/Inactiveships/SINKEX/pdfs/SINKEX_Project_Final_Report_March%20200

6.pdf

14 Id. (emphasis added).
7

animals and are probable carcinogens for humans. Other known significant ecological and 

human health effects of PCBs include neurotoxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, 

immune system suppression, liver damage, skin irritation, and endocrine disruption.15 PCBs are 

non-flammable and chemically stable, so after they are released into the environment they 

persist for many years.16 The manufacture of PCBs has been banned in the United States due to 

their highly toxic effects and persistence in the environment once released.17 PCBs are also a 

persistent organic pollutant (POP) targeted for global phase-out and action under the Stockholm 

Convention.18 

Due to their longevity as a molecule, and their capacity to be attracted to fatty tissue and 

accumulate in the marine food chain, PCBs are perhaps the greatest concern of all shipboard 

contaminants. PCBs bind to sediments, bioaccumulate in fish and other animals, and 

biomagnify in the food chain, creating hazards at all levels.19 As a result, people who ingest fish 

may be exposed to dangerous levels of PCBs.20 In fact, due to the toxin’s accumulation 

properties, many scientists believe there is no safe level of exposure to PCBs.21

Higher trophic level (higher in the food chain) organisms such as fish-eating birds,

omnivorous birds, and marine mammals are exposed to PCBs via their consumption of prey. 

Generally, the typical PCB levels increase by a factor of 10- to 100-fold when ascending major 

consumption levels in a food chain (Gobas et al. 1995). Specifically, Wasserman et al. (1979) 

 

15 U.S. EPA, PCBs: Cancer Dose-Response Assessment and Application to Environmental Mixtures. EPA/600/P96/001F, (1996), available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=12486. 

16 Id.

17 See 15 U.S.C. § 2605(e). 

18 Annex A, Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

19 U.S. EPA, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and You, EPA 910-F-99-001, available at

http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/TRIBAL.NSF/af6d4571f3e2b1698825650f0071180a/1e4f27736563fc3a882571db0066

1b15/$FILE/910-F-99-001PCBS.pdf

20 U.S. EPA and U.S. Maritime Administration, National Guidance: Best Management Practices for Preparing 

Vessels Intended to Create Artificial Reefs(May 2006) at 35, available at

http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/habitat/artificialreefs/documents/0605finalreefguidance.pdf.

21 U.S. EPA, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and You, EPA 910-F-99-001, available at

http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/TRIBAL.NSF/af6d4571f3e2b1698825650f0071180a/1e4f27736563fc3a882571db0066

1b15/$FILE/910-F-99-001PCBS.pdf.
8

reported that for marine food webs, zooplankton range from < 0.003 μg/g to 1 μg/g, whereas 

top consumers, such as seals and fish, had ranges of PCB from 0.03 to 212 μg/g. Therefore, if 

PCBs are abundant in lower trophic levels, they will be amplified through the food chain to 

levels that can adversely affect higher trophic level organisms.22

The EPA has characterized PCBs as “mutation-causing, cancer-causing, and teratogenic 

[meaning they can interfere with normal embryonic development].”23 The EPA notes “PCBs 

have been shown to cause cancer in animals and have also been shown to cause a number of 

serious non- cancer health effects...including effects on the immune system, reproductive 

system, nervous system, endocrine system, and other health effects. Studies in humans provide 

supportive evidence for potential carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects of PCBs.”24

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry25 states that women who ate large 

amounts of fish contaminated with PCBs had babies that weighed slightly less than babies from 

women who did not have these exposures. Babies born to women who ate PCB-contaminated 

fish also showed abnormal responses in tests of infant behavior. Other studies suggest that 

children’s immune system was affected, most likely through exposure to PCBs in breast milk. 

Transfer of PCBs across the placenta has also been reported. 

PCBs also have significant adverse effects on wildlife: the EPA has noted that effects on 

avian species include “morbidity, tremors, upward pointing beaks, muscular incoordination, 

and hemorrhagic areas in the liver,” as well as “delayed reproduction and chromosomal 

aberrations in Ringed Turtle-doves; courtship and nestbuilding behavioral impairments in 

Mourning Doves; reduced hatchability in chicken eggs; and decline in sperm concentration in 

 

22 Dr. Peter deFur, Environmental Stewardship Concepts, LLC (See Appendix) 

23 U.S. EPA, Region 5 Superfund, Ecological Toxicity Information, available at

http://www.epa.gov/reg5sfun/ecology/toxprofiles.htm

24 U.S. EPA and U.S. Maritime Administration, National Guidance: Best Management Practices for Preparing 

Vessels Intended to Create Artificial Reefs(May 2006) at 35 (emphasis added), available at

http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/habitat/artificialreefs/documents/0605finalreefguidance.pdf.

25 Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, Public Health Assessments and Health Consultations, Public 

Health Implications (A)(1)(a) (updated April 14, 2010), available at

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/pha/pha.asp?docid=1159&pg=2
9

American Kestrels.”26 Effects on aquatic organisms include “growth reduction in algae and 

brook trout; reduced egg survival and reduced fertilization success in flounder, minnows, sea 

urchins (prior to fertilization, eggs were more resistant to PCBs at insemination and 

afterwards); and complete reproductive failure in brook trout. Cancer-causing effects and 

biochemical perturbations were observed in trout liver cells and marine fishes; with anemia, 

hyperglycemia, and altered cholesterol metabolism in brown trout fed diets with 10 PPM 

PCBs.”

27

 PCBs have been implicated in: reduced primary productivity in phytoplankton, 

reduced hatchability of contaminated fish and bird eggs, reproductive failure in seals, 

reproductive impairment in fish, and reduced fertilization efficiency in sea urchins.28

B. PCBs From Sunk Vessels Leach Into The Marine Environment

A recent study of the EX-ORISKANY demonstrates that PCBs on sunken vessels leach 

into the marine environment at levels that pose a significant risk to human health and the 

marine environment. The EX-ORISKANY was sunk off the coast of Florida in 2006 after 

remediation, including removal of some PCBs. All liquid PCBs were removed from the vessel 

prior to sinking, but some solid PCBs were left on board because their removal was not deemed 

practicable. Environmental remediation left intact an estimated 722 pounds of solid PCBs found 

in approximately 362,240 pounds of electric cable insulation, 31,700 pounds of fiberglass 

bulkhead insulation and 284,044 pounds of contaminated paint all left onboard for sinking.29 

Some material, such as the electric cable insulation, sampled as high as concentrations of 19,000 

parts per million PCBs, with an average concentrations of 1,500 parts per million PCBs.

30

 

26 U.S. EPA, Region 5 Superfund, Ecological Toxicity Information, available at

http://www.epa.gov/reg5sfun/ecology/toxprofiles.htm.

27 Id. (citing U.S. EPA, Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Polychlorinated Biphenyls, EPA 440/5-80-068 (1980)).

28 Adams, J.A. and S. Slaughter-Williams. 1988; Brouwer, A., et al 1989; Clark, R.B. 1992.;den Beston, et al 1991.

29 J. Dodrill, K. Mille, B. Horn, & R. Turpin, Progress report summarizing the reef fish sampling, PCB analysis 

results and visual monitoring associated with the Oriskany Reef, a decommissioned former Navy aircraft carrier 

sunk in 2006 as an artificial reef in the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico off Pensacola, Florida (Apr. 13, 2011) at pp. 

19-20.

30 Id.
10

The Navy claimed that the estimated 680,000 pounds of PCB-contaminated material, 

existing in hundreds of compartments at various levels below the main deck, was not accessible 

unless the vessel was fully dismantled. Rather than dismantling and recycling the vessel at an 

approved domestic facility, the Navy identified remediation of these PCBs as cost-prohibitive 

and sought an exemption from the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) via a risk-based 

disposal permit from EPA. The Navy developed the Prospective Risk Assessment Model (PRAM) 

and conducted a study at a cost of $3.74 million to illustrate a limited risk to human health and 

the environment from the ocean disposal of PCBs during the sinking of the vessel. The EPA 

granted the PCB risk-based disposal permit thereby allowing the EX-ORISKANY to be sunk with 

PCBs onboard. 

The PCB remediation requirements for the EX-ORISKANY under the risk-based disposal 

permit were similar in scope to PCB remediation requirements for SINKEX vessels. All liquid 

PCBs were removed from the EX-ORISKANY prior to sinking, so all documented leaching is 

from solid PCBs where the removal of the PCB-contaminated material was not deemed 

practicable. Similarly, while the SINKEX general permit requires removal of liquid PCBs prior 

to sinking, the permit and related agreements provide that solid PCBs may be left on board if 

their removal is not practicable.31 

Prior to the sinking of the EX-ORISKANY, the Navy and EPA modeled the PCB leach 

rates and identified an acceptable level they deemed safe for fish uptake and human 

consumption. To test their modeling assumptions, the EPA required a post-sinking monitoring 

program conducted by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 

According to data from the post-sinking monitoring program, PCB concentrations in fish caught 

at the EX-ORISKANY site are now more than twice that of the EPA’s pre-sinking forecasted 

levels. 33% of all fish sampled post-sinking in the vicinity of the EX-ORISKANY had PCB 

 

31 See Agreement between Elsie L. Munsell, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and Robert H. Wayland III, 

Director, EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds (Aug. 2, 1999).
11

concentrations above 20 parts per billion (ppb), the EPA screening level.32 21% of all fish 

sampled post-sinking had PCB concentrations above 50 ppb, the Florida Department of Health 

fish advisory threshold.33 Total PCB concentrations in fish samples increased 1,446% on average 

from pre-sinking to post-sinking.34

Table 1: EX-ORISKANY 

Site Fish PCB 

Sampling: Pre-sinking 

vs. Post-sinking 

Concentrations 2006-

2009

Pre-Sinking 

Site

Post-Sinking 

Site

Red Snapper Samples 17 157

Red Snapper Mean PCB 

Concentration 2.36 ppb 54 ppb

Total Samples 62 180

Total Mean PCB Concentration 3.8 ppb 58.75 ppb

Total Fish Above 20 ppb 

(EPA Screening Level) 2* 60

Total Fish Above 50 ppb

(Florida DoH Fish Advisory 

Threshold)

1* 38

*Gag and king mackerel – species not sampled post-sinking.

Source: Table developed by author using data provided by Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission Post-Sinking Monitoring Study 2006-2009

There were also two sampling events in 2008 on a control reef (see Table 2). The control 

reef is a concrete bridge rubble reef that is 8 miles from the EX-ORISKANY site. The control reef 

samples were taken on the same days as the EX-ORISKANY samples in 2008. PCB 

concentrations in fish caught at the EX-ORISKANY site in 2008 were more than 932%, on 

average, higher than PCB concentrations in fish caught at the control reef.35

Table 2: Fish PCB 

Sampling: EXORISKANY Site vs. 

Control Reef Site 2008

Control Reef 

2008

ORISKANY 

Reef 2008

Red Snapper Samples 45 60

Red Snapper Mean PCB 

Concentration 7.6 ppb 55.22 ppb

 

32 Dr. Peter deFur, Environmental Stewardship Concepts, LLC (See Appendix)

33 Id.

34 Id.

35 Id.
12

Total Samples 61 61

Total Mean PCB Concentration 7.89 ppb 81.44 ppb

Total Fish Above 20 ppb 

(EPA Screening Level) 5 16

Total Fish Above 50 ppb

(Florida DoH Fish Advisory 

Threshold)

0 12

Source: Table developed by author using data provided by Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission Post-Sinking Monitoring Study

These actual results from the Florida study stand in stark contrast to the Navy’s presinking estimates of the effects of the sinking, contained in the Final Report Ex-ORISKANY 

Artificial Reef Project Ecological Risk Assessment (PEO, 2006).36 That pre-sinking assessment 

stated that the no effect threshold for total PCB would be exceeded only in dolphins,

cormorants, and herring gulls. The study suggested PCB exposure levels posed no risks to 

plants, invertebrates, fishes, sea turtles, and sharks/barracudas that could live, feed, and forage 

on the reef. Further, the study concluded that due to the conservative estimates used in the 

analysis, “it is very unlikely that potential risks were under estimated.”37 However, the Florida 

study found PCBs in the tissues of organisms associated with the reef and in the diet of reef 

consumers at levels more than twice that of the conservative estimates predicted by the Navy 

and EPA. These levels pose elevated risks to human health and the environment, and 

demonstrate that the Navy and EPA’s pre-sinking assessments do not adequately anticipate 

these risks. 

In fact, the Florida Department of Health (FDOH) considered issuing a fish consumption 

advisory for snapper caught at the EX-ORISKANY site prior to the June 1, 2010 opening of 

snapper fishing season. However, a fish consumption advisory was not released by FDOH 

because a Federal fishing closure was released in May as a result of the Deepwater Horizon Oil 

 

36 See Ecological Risk Assessment, Ex-ORISKANY Artificial Reef Project (Jan. 2006) at p.1-3, available at

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ada485008. 

37 Id. at p.1-4. 
13

spill. Fishing was prohibited under Federal closure which encompassed the EX-ORISKANY site; 

therefore a PCB fish advisory was not deemed necessary. The facts leading FDOH to consider 

issuing a fish advisory (including elevated PCB concentrations above FDOH thresholds), 

however, indicate a serious risk to human health and the marine environment from PCB 

exposure.

In sum, the data from the EX-ORISKANY Post-Sinking Monitoring Program 

demonstrate that solid PCBs on sunken vessels do leach into the marine environment at levels 

that pose a significant risk to human health and the marine environment. 

C. PCBs May Be Transported From The Deep Ocean To Shallow Marine Ecosystems

The Navy has long argued that PCB releases in the deep ocean from SINKEX vessels 

(6,000 feet or greater) do not pose adverse risks to marine life at that depth. The Navy has also 

suggested that the deep benthic environment has minimal chance of physical or biological 

transport to the shallow marine ecosystem. However, the EPA acknowledges the 

physicochemical properties of PCBs, including low solubility in water, very high 

bioconcentration factor, and very low degradation rates, which determine their behavior in the 

environment.38 And because PCBs are very hydrophobic (readily come out of solution), 

persistent and highly lipophilic (partition into lipids and organic carbon) they readily adsorb 

onto particles and thus readily build up in the food chain (bio and geoaccumulation).39 These 

known characteristics suggest there are at least three scientifically acknowledged modes of 

material transport from the deep ocean to shallow waters: Biographic Transport; Upwelling; and 

Meridional Circulation Overturning. The EPA itself recognizes that persistent organic pollutants 

(POPs) such as PCBs, “circulate globally via the atmosphere, oceans, and other pathways, 

 

38 D. Mackay, K.C. Ma, and W.Y. Shiu Illustrated Handbook of Physical-Chemical Properties and Environmental 

Fate for Organic Chemicals, Vol. I:Monoaromatic Hydrocarbons, Chlorobenzens, and PCBs 697 (Lewis Publishers 

1992).

39 Oliver Froescheiset al, The Deep-Sea as a Final Global Sink of Semivolatile Persistent Organic Pollutants? Part I: 

PCBs in Surface and Deep-Sea Dwelling Fish of the North and South Atlantic and the Monterey Bay Canyon 

(California), 40 Chemosphere 6, March 2000, at 651–60.
14

POPs released in one part of the world can travel to regions far from their source of origin. 

Therefore, they are chemicals of both local and global concern.”40 Because PCBs persist in the 

environment for decades or more after they are released, PCBs circulated via any of these 

transport mechanisms may pose risks far into the future and even if these mechanisms work 

slowly to transport contaminants from depth. 

1. Biographic Transport

Marine life that has taken up PCBs in deep water at the disposal site can transport PCB 

material via migration and predatory consumption to the shallow marine ecosystem, which can 

continue up the food chain to humans. Sunken SINKEX vessels typically rest in the 

bathylpelagic zone (1,000-4,000 meters). Biographically speaking, organisms from each zone 

have contact with organisms from the zone above and below, allowing for food transfer and PCB 

uptake through the water column. “Undoubtedly, there is considerable trophic [feeding]

interaction among these larger epipelagic fishes [albacore, blue shark, swordfish, etc.] and 

their meso- and bathypelagic counterparts during diel [daily] vertical migration.”41

Additionally, an assemblage of vertically migrating marine organisms called the Deep 

Scattering Layer (DSL), travel from the deep ocean to the shallows at night to feed where trophic 

interaction occurs.42 DSLs have been recorded at all depths to 3,000 meters.43

The ocean food web is interconnected, with humans acting as quaternary [fourth layer] 

consumers (consuming tertiary consumers). PCB’s ability to accumulate in the environment and 

in organisms means that organisms at higher trophic levels (higher in the food chain), such as 

humans, are at higher risk of toxic concentrations of PCBs than marine organisms themselves.44

 

40 U.S. EPA, U.S. Signs Treaty on POPs, OPPTS Tribal News, EPA 745-N-00-001, Vol. 3 No. 2 (2001), at 7 

(emphasis added), available at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/tribal/pubs/TribalNewsletter1of2.pdf

41 Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Site Characterization,Biological Communities &Assemblages, Pelagic 

Zone , (A) Epipelagic Zone, http://montereybay.noaa.gov/sitechar/pelagic5.html (emphasis added).

42 Id.

43 A.F. Opdal, et al , Distribution, Identity, and Possible Processes Sustaining Meso- and baBhypelagic Scattering 

Layers on the Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge (2007). 

44 Barnthouse, Glaser, Young, 2003
15

Marine mammals such as whales and dolphins are also at higher risk.

The conceptual model used by the Navy and MARAD to evaluate the human health and 

ecological risks of sunken warships suggests the deep sea community does not interact with the 

shallow marine ecosystem, and as such, they failed to recognize the realities of the ocean food 

web. In fact, PCB material can be transported great distances from the initial sink site via 

physical and biological means. PCBs and other hazardous materials left on SINKEX vessels are 

in no way contained to the dumping site.

2. Upwelling 

The physical marine transport process called upwelling routinely moves materials from 

deep water to surface water.45 Upwelling can occur in coastal regions as well as the open ocean,46

and can be wind or tide-induced. Both types of upwelling do not typically occur in isolation, but 

rather coexist.47 

Open ocean winds cause surface waters to diverge from a region (causing upwelling) or 

to converge toward some region (causing downwelling).48 These movements are essential to 

stirring the ocean, delivering oxygen to depth, distributing heat, and bringing nutrients to the 

surface.49

Upwelling is a vital ecological process that delivers nutrients from the benthic zone (sea 

floor); however, this same process is also capable of delivering PCBs from sunken naval vessels 

to shallow waters. 

 

45 M. Tomczak,.Upwelling Dynamics in Deep and Shallow Water, Shelf and Coastal Oceanography (1998), 

available at http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/ShelfCoast/notes/chapter06.html

46 NASA, Wind-Driven Surface Currants: Upwelling and Downwelling, Background, 

http://oceanmotion.org/html/background/upwelling-and-downwelling.htm

47 M. Tomczak,.Upwelling Dynamics in Deep and Shallow Water, Shelf and Coastal Oceanography (1998), 

available at http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/ShelfCoast/notes/chapter06.html. 

48 NASA, Wind-Driven Surface Currants: Upwelling and Downwelling, Background, 

http://oceanmotion.org/html/background/upwelling-and-downwelling.htm.

49 Tazmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, Upwelling and Downwelling in the Ocean, 

http://www.redmap.org.au/resources/impact-of-climate-change-on-the-marine-environment/upwelling-anddownwelling
16

Coastal upwelling occurs when wind blows parallel to the coast, deflecting surface water 

away from the coastline (Ekman Transport) as influenced by the Coriolis effect (Earth’s 

rotation). Surface water is pushed offshore and is replaced by cool, nutrient-rich water from the 

deep ocean.50 This process is also capable of delivering PCBs from sunken naval vessels to 

shallow waters, yet upwelling has not been assessed by the Navy as a material transport risk.

3. Meridional Circulation Overturning 

Deep ocean currents and water circulation produces dynamic uplift capable of delivering 

sediments, to which PCBs adhere, to surface waters on a global scale. Traditionally, this is 

known as Meridional Circulation Overturning, in which currents driven by wind, thermohaline 

[salinity and temperature interactive] circulation, and atmospheric conditions transport deep 

water to shallow water.51 Similar to upwelling, this naturally occurring ocean circulation has not 

been assessed by the Navy as a potential PCB transport mechanism from sunken naval vessels.

D. Past Navy Studies Finding No Risk From PCBs On SINKEX Vessels Have Been 

Discredited Or Conclusively Contradicted

To date only a single SINKEX vessel – the Ex-AGERHOLM – has been the subject of any 

significant post-sinking monitoring or study to assess whether and how PCBs are leaching from 

sunk vessels and harming the marine environment, but the scope of this study was limited in 

critical respects. First, the Navy did not sample the vessel for PCBs prior to sinking; rather, they 

carried out a source characterization study in 1998 to estimate the volume of PCBs left onboard 

in 1982 during sinking, and estimated a range of anywhere from 12 pounds to 80 pounds of 

PCBs.52 Second, the study investigates leaching at only a single vessel, despite the fact that at 

the planning stages of the study a scientific review panel advised that it would be necessary to 

 

50 NASA, Wind-Driven Surface Currants: Upwelling and Downwelling, Background, 

http://oceanmotion.org/html/background/upwelling-and-downwelling.htm.

51 NASA, Ocean Life Depends on Single Circulation Pattern In Southern Hemisphere (Dec. 31, 2003), 

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=24124

52 See Final Report: Risk Assessment of the Potential Release of PCBs and Other Contaminants from Sunken Navy 

Ships in the Deep Ocean: Ex-AGERHOLM Case Study (March 2006) at 2-9 to 2-11, available at

http://www.navsea.navy.mil/teamships/Inactiveships/SINKEX/pdfs/SINKEX_Project_Final_Report_March%20200

6.pdf.
17

investigate multiple sites.53 At that time, the Ex-AGERHOLM was the only sunken vessel that 

could be located; however, since 1997 the Navy has documented all sunk vessels with precise 

latitude and longitude coordinates, making it fairly easy to locate a target vessel to conduct 

additional assessments now. Finally, the study does not address whether and how leaching 

occurred in the initial 16 years following sinking. Based on the samples taken 16 years after the 

vessel’s sinking, however, the study found that PCB concentrations in sablefish at the site were 

higher than sablefish sampled at reference locations, and sediment samples taken from close to 

the ship had PCB concentrations twice as high as samples taken at a greater distance.54 

Dr. Peter deFur, an independent environmental scientist with expertise in ecological risk 

assessment, conducted a thorough review of the studies the Navy relied on to support their “no 

unreasonable risk” conclusions from PCBs on sunken naval vessels. He found critical faults and 

limitations in the Navy’s conclusions, including a reliance on base assumptions that are 

outdated and do not take into consideration the current scientific understanding of PCBs in the 

marine environment. Dr. deFur suggests that PCBs, once introduced to a system, continuously 

cycle through, become bioavailable, and bioaccumulate up the food chain. The only remedy is to 

limit or prevent their introduction to the marine environment. His general comments and 

conclusions are summarized in this section, and his direct comments are included in the 

Appendix to this document.

The studies conducted on the Ex-ORISKANY prior to sinking analyzed the risks 

associated with sinking in shallow water ecosystems via artificial reefing; these studies are the 

most recent and thorough pre-sinking assessments of any sunken naval vessel. Further, the ExORISKANY is the only sunken naval vessel in which there exists both pre-sinking assessments 

as well as reliable post-sinking fish data to measure the accuracy of the pre-sinking conclusions. 

Dr. deFur suggests the basic processes behind leaching of toxic chemicals and subsequent 

 

53 Id. at 1-19.

54 Id. at 1-17.
18

movement into the food web, with harmful consequences to the environment and human health, 

are not affected by sink depth such that less protective measures can be afforded vessels sunk in 

deeper waters through SINKEX. For this reason, the Ex-ORISKANY serves as a critical example 

of PCB leach rates in real marine environments (not modeled) from sunken naval vessels, 

regardless of sink depth. Dr. deFur concludes that the release of PCBs from ships such as the ExORISKANY causes an unacceptable risk to human health and the marine environment. Further, 

he concludes that based on the recent data for PCB levels in fish tissue at the Ex-ORISKANY reef 

site and a control reef, general permitting under MPRSA for SINKEX underestimates the impact 

of PCBs found in solid materials left on-board a vessel for sinking.

The Ex-AGERHOLM remains the only SINKEX vessel studied by the Navy and EPA via 

the Sunken Vessel Study, the conclusions of which relied on sediment samples taken at three 

intervals 16 years after sinking and a PCB leachability laboratory study based on these sediment 

samples. Dr. deFur suggests the Sunken Vessel Study does not provide adequate data for 

building a sediment-based hydrological model for ships sunk under SINKEX or in other waters 

that are in fundamentally different hydrological and oceanographic regions. Indeed, the Navy 

relied on the Ex-AGERHOLM sediment data to develop leach rate studies to predict leaching 

from the Ex-ORISKANY—and, as discussed above, the “conservative” pre-sinking estimates of 

PCB leach rates from the Ex-ORISKANY substantially underestimated the actual leach rates as 

established by post-sinking monitoring. This now-discredited sediment data was the primary 

scientific support for EPA’s decision to issue the SINKEX general permit and to waive TSCA’s 

otherwise applicable requirements. 

While the post-sinking Ex-ORISKANY findings clearly suggest the EX-AGERHOLM 

sediment data and modeling studies have serious faults, new evidence suggests sediment data is 

not even an accurate measure for PCB impacts on the marine food chain. In the PCB Strategy 

for the Commonwealth of Virginia created by the Virginia Department of Environmental 

Quality (2005), a subgroup was formed to develop screening levels and cleanup levels for PCBs 
19

in soils and sediments. The purpose of the screening levels is to help prioritize PCB 

contaminated sites, but the subgroup cautioned against relying solely on the soil and sediment 

screening levels alone:

 

“... the subgroup recognized that the risk-based screening levels would likely be too low to be 

an effective prioritization tool. The risk-based approaches confirmed that very low levels of 

PCBs (1.8 to 49 ppb) in sediments could result in elevated fish tissue concentrations” (VA DEQ, 

2005)

Further, the subgroup notes that in many cases, the small sample size may account for 

the lack of elevated sediment data. The hitting or missing of PCBs during sediment collection is 

a reality in the sediment risk-based approach. In addition to other problems with that study, 

reliance on the Sunken Vessel Study may have led EPA and the Navy to underestimate risks 

both because sediment sample collection may not capture actual PCB levels and because PCB 

levels in sediments may not be an accurate proxy for effects on marine life. 

Also, because PCBs bioaccumulate as well as biomagnify up the food chain, high PCB 

levels in marine sediments are not necessary for the presence of higher PCB levels in fish. The 

data collected in the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Fish Tissue and Sediment 

Monitoring program show that there is often no direct correlation between sediment levels and 

fish tissue levels. The subgroup also concludes that local conditions may be such that the low 

levels of PCBs that do occur in the sediments are bioavailable (VA DEQ, 2005).

In sum, there is substantial recent evidence supporting the conclusion that PCBs on 

board sunken SINKEX vessels pose unreasonable risks to human health and the marine 

environment. PCB (and other toxic chemical) remediation needs to be based on leaching, 

toxicology, persistence and accumulation and other scientific matters, no matter the purpose of 

the sinking. There is little to no difference in PCB bioavailability between deep sea and shallow 

waters because the same chemical, physical and biological mechanisms operate in all cases. In 
20

both cases, corrosion and breakdown of the vessel will occur over time, making all of the PCB 

containing solid materials biologically available through water and sediment uptake.

 The factors that form the basis for determining the risks of PCBs have developed 

substantially in recent years, providing data on toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation that 

was simply not available 30 years ago—yet the current SINKEX permit, and lack of TSCA 

regulation, is based on studies and data that are outdated and demonstrably inaccurate. 

Because the breakdown processes and bioavailability of PCBs are similar whether a vessel is 

sunk in shallow or deep ocean waters, studies used to regulate PCBs on vessels used for artificial 

reefs apply to setting standards for regulating PCBs on vessels used in the SINKEX program. All 

of the above evidence shows that the current SINKEX permit standards are inadequate and 

should be revised.55

III. FEDERAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW STRICTLY REGULATE THE DISPOSAL OF 

PCBS IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT

A. Federal Law Requires EPA To Protect Human Health And The Marine 

Environment From PCB Contamination. 

1. Federal Law Governing Ocean Dumping

The MPRSA was passed in 1972 to curtail the practice of ocean dumping, particularly the 

ocean dumping of highly toxic substances.56 Accordingly, the MPRSA generally prohibits all 

ocean dumping unless authorized by permit issued pursuant to the Act.57 The EPA 

Administrator may issue a permit for ocean dumping if she finds that the proposed dumping 

“will not unreasonably degrade or endanger” human health or the marine environment.58 

Additionally, the MPRSA provides that the Administrator shall review permits periodically and 

 

55 Dr. Peter deFur, Environmental Stewardship Concepts, LLC (See Appendix) 

56 33 U.S.C. § 1401; S. Rep. 92-451 (Nov. 12, 1971). 

57 Id. § 1411.

58 Id. § 1412(a). 
21

may revoke them if she finds that the dumping is no longer consistent with the criteria she must 

consider in approving permits initially.59 

The MPRSA provides specific criteria that the Administrator shall consider in 

determining whether to issue a permit for ocean dumping, including:

(A) The need for the proposed dumping. 

(B) The effect of such dumping on human health and welfare, including 

economic, esthetic, and recreational values. 

(C) The effect of such dumping on fisheries resources, plankton, fish, shellfish, 

wildlife, shore lines and beaches. 

(D) The effect of such dumping on marine ecosystems, particularly with respect 

to—

(i) the transfer, concentration, and dispersion of such material and its byproducts 

through biological, physical, and chemical processes. 

(ii) potential changes in marine ecosystem diversity, productivity, and stability, 

and 

(iii) species and community population dynamics. 

(E) The persistence and permanence of the effects of the dumping. 

(F) The effect of dumping particular volumes and concentrations of such 

materials. 

(G) Appropriate locations and methods of disposal or recycling, including landbased alternatives and the probable impact of requiring use of such alternate 

locations or methods upon considerations affecting the public interest. 

(H) The effect on alternate uses of oceans, such as scientific study, fishing, and 

other living resource exploitation, and non-living resource exploitation.60

The regulations implementing the MPRSA further elaborate on the criteria the 

Administrator will consider in determining whether to grant a permit for ocean dumping.61 

Specifically, the regulations provide that “known carcinogens, mutagens, or teratogens or 

materials suspected to be carcinogens, mutagens, or teratogens by responsible scientific 

 

59 Id. § 1414(d); see also 40 C.F.R. § 223.2–223.5 (procedure for limiting or revoking permits).

60 Id. § 1412(a).

61 40 C.F.R. pt. 227.
22

opinion” will not be approved for ocean dumping unless they are only present as “trace”

contaminants, defined as “such forms and amounts [of the pollutants] that the dumping . . . will 

not cause significant undesirable effects, including the possibility of danger associated with 

their bioaccumulation in marine organisms.”62 

2. Federal Law Governing Toxic Substances 

TSCA authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate chemical 

substances that pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment,

63 and to 

require additional testing of substances if there is not enough information to determine whether 

the use, distribution, or disposal of a substance poses an unreasonable risk.64 Unlike most 

chemical substances, which the Administrator must list before regulating, the Act itself singles 

out PCBs for regulation. The PCB provision, section 6(e) of the Act,65 contains strict 

requirements intended to phase out entirely the manufacture and use of PCBs in the United 

States, and contains broad prohibitions on the manufacture, processing, commercial 

distribution, and use of PCBs. Section 6(e) also requires the Administrator to issue rules 

requiring PCBs to be marked with “clear and adequate warnings.”66 Section 6(e) also requires 

the Administrator to issue rules prescribing methods for the disposal of PCBs.67 Accordingly, 

EPA has enacted extensive rules governing domestic disposal of PCBs.68 Additionally, EPA has 

banned the export for disposal of PCBs in concentrations greater than 50ppm without an 

exemption.69

 

62 40 C.F.R. § 227.6(a)–(b). 

63 15 U.S.C. § 2605(a).

64 Id. § 2603.

65 Id. § 2605(e).

66 Id. § 2605(e)(1)(B).

67 Id. § 2605(e)(1)(A).

68 40 C.F.R. § 761.50.

69 Id. § 761.97; see also id. § 761.20(c)(3) (authorizing distribution in commerce for the purposes of export for 

disposal if conducted in accordance with the disposal rules).
23

As discussed above, TSCA contains a waiver provision allowing EPA to waive TSCA’s 

applicability when another federal law adequately protects against the risks posed by a toxic 

substance.70 TSCA also contains a specific citizen petition provision; under this provision, EPA 

must respond to all petitions for rulemaking, such as this one, within 90 days, and EPA’s denial 

of such a petition is afforded particularly searching judicial review.71

B. International Law Governing Ocean Dumping

1. London Convention

The United States is a party to the International Convention on the Prevention of Marine 

Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (also known as the London Convention), 

which imposes restrictions on the deliberate ocean disposal of waste material. The Convention 

aims “ . . . to prevent the pollution of the sea by the dumping of waste and other matter that is 

liable to create hazards to human health, to harm living resources and marine life, to damage 

amenities or to interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea.”

The act of sinking vessels at sea for the purpose of disposal is considered ocean dumping

under the provisions of the Convention: “Dumping has been defined as the deliberate disposal 

at sea of wastes or other matter from vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made 

structures, as well as the deliberate disposal of these vessels or platforms themselves.”72 The 

Convention offers an exception to this definition when “placement of matter serves an 

alternative purpose other than mere disposal thereof, provided that such placement is not 

contrary to the aims of this Convention.”

In other words, the act of sinking vessels at sea for the purpose of disposal is not 

considered ocean dumping if the sunken vessel serves an alternative purpose and provided that 

 

70 15 U.S.C. § 2608.

71 Id. § 2620(b)(3). 

72 Id.
24

alternative purpose does not create a hazard to human health, living resources and/or marine 

life, damages amenities or interferes with other legitimate uses of the sea. 

The 1996 London Protocol which the U.S. has not ratified but has signed (showing 

agreement and intent to ratify) acts as an amendment to the London Convention and goes 

further in its aim to eliminate ocean dumping. It allows an exception for vessels to be dumped 

only if contaminants have been “removed to the maximum extent.” Further, the London 

Protocol calls on Parties to make decisions on such exceptions to be decided based on the 

Precautionary Principle and the principle against transferring harm from one part of the 

environment to another.73

2. Stockholm Convention

The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants is a global treaty created to 

protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants (POPs).74 More 

than 100 countries negotiated this treaty in 2001, with the U.S. playing a leading role in pushing 

for international action to ban or severely restrict the production, use, sale and/or release of 

these chemicals.75 The U.S. has not as yet ratified the Convention, but this is expected during the 

Obama Administration.

Of the twelve chemicals initially named in the Convention, nine chemicals are listed in 

Annex A with the intent for global elimination, including PCBs.76 The Convention is unequivocal 

in its mandate that Annex A chemicals, such as PCBs, must be destroyed or irreversibly 

transformed so that they no longer exhibit the characteristics of POPs. 

 

73 Id.

74 Stockholm Treaty, available at http://www.pops.int/documents/convtext/convtext_en.pdf

75 U.S. EPA, U.S. Signs Treaty on POPs, OPPTS Tribal News, EPA 745-N-00-001, Vol. 3 No. 2 (2001), available 

at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/tribal/pubs/TribalNewsletter1of2.pdf. 

76 Annex A, Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.
25

Article 6 (1) (d) of the Convention provides that each Party must:

“Take appropriate measures so that such wastes, including products and articles upon 

becoming wastes, are . . . 

(ii) Disposed of in such a way that the persistent organic pollutant content is destroyed or 

irreversibly transformed so that they do not exhibit the characteristics of persistent organic 

pollutants or otherwise disposed of in an environmentally sound manner when destruction or 

irreversible transformation does not represent the environmentally preferable option or the 

persistent organic pollutant content is low, taking into account international rules, standards, 

and guidelines, including those that may be developed pursuant to paragraph 2, and relevant 

global and regional regimes governing the management of hazardous wastes.”

The Basel Convention was tasked with developing guidelines on PCB disposal, and in 

particular, setting low POP content levels to work cooperatively with the Stockholm Convention.

The guidelines identify PCB concentrations of 50 ppm to be detrimental and should therefore 

require the destruction or irreversible transformation prior to disposal. However, the U.S. 

SINKEX program allows the dumping of vessels containing PCBs in concentrations above that 

Stockholm Convention disposal level. 

3. Convention on the Organization for Economic Co-operation and 

Development (OECD)

On December 14, 1960, 20 nations adopted the Convention on the Organization for 

Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises) to 

promote a global market economy. 77 Today, the OECD is composed of 31 of the most developed 

nations in the world; the U.S. being one of the original members.78

In order to achieve its goals, the OECD can promulgate decisions that are generally 

binding on its members.79 OECD Decision C(87)2/Final focuses specifically on the disposal of 

 

77 OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/56/36/1922428.pdf

78 Id.

79 Id.
26

PCBs and recommends that member countries, as far as practicable, ensure that disposal of PCB 

containing waste is carried out in a manner that avoids the release of PCBs into the 

environment.80 The U.S. fails to respect this recommendation in good faith by permitting the 

ocean disposal of PCBs that remain in naval vessels during and after sinking.

IV. EPA IS VIOLATING FEDERAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW BY ALLOWING THE 

MARINE DISPOSAL OF PCBS VIA SINKEX. 

A. The SINKEX General Permit Fails To Protect Human Health And The Marine 

Environment And Is Inconsistent With The MPRSA Criteria 

EPA has issued a MPRSA general permit authorizing SINKEX dumping by the Navy.81 

The general permit requires the Navy, prior to sinking, to “remove to the maximum extent 

practicable all materials which may degrade the marine environment.”82 A letter of agreement 

between EPA and the Navy in 1999 details how this requirement applies specifically to PCBs, 

namely what specific steps are considered “practicable” with regards to removal of PCBs in 

various locations on vessels. While some major PCB items must be removed – e.g., 

transformers and capacitors – other items, such as bonded felt gaskets and bulkhead insulation, 

are left in place: 

when [PCB] objects cannot be practicably removed or their removal threatens 

the structural integrity of the vessels so as to impede the SINKEX, the Navy may 

leave such items in place (e.g, felt materials that are bonded in bolted flanges or 

mounted under heavy equipment. certain paints and adhesives). Objects may be 

considered not capable of practicable removal if equipment must be 

disassembled or removed for access to the objects, if the objects must be 

removed by heat, chemical stripping, scraping, abrasive blasting or similar 

process, or if removal would endanger human safety or health even when 

conducted with protective equipment and reasonable safety measures.83

While the permit requires appropriate measures be taken “to remove to the maximum extent 

practicable all materials which may degrade the marine environment,” the Navy interprets 

 

80 Id. art. III(2).

81 40 C.F.R. § 229.2; see also 33 U.S.C. § 1414(c) (authorizing Administrator to issue general permits).

82 40 C.F.R. § 229.2(a)(4) (emphasis added). 

83 See Agreement between Elsie L. Munsell, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and Robert H. Wayland III, 

Director, EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds(Aug. 2, 1999).
27

this to mean that vessel remediation is conducted in a manner that includes “the removal of all 

PCB transformers and large capacitors, all small capacitors to the greatest extent practical, 

trash, floatable materials, mercury or fluorocarbon containing materials, and readily 

detachable solid PCB items.”84 Readily detachable or readily removable solid PCB items means 

items that can be removed in a cost effective and efficient manner without the use of heat, 

chemical stripping, scraping and abrasive blasting or similar processes.85

While removal of liquid PCBs found in transformers and capacitors is required to the 

greatest extent practical prior to vessel sinking, the removal of material containing solid-matrix 

PCBs is not required to the greatest extent practical. Only readily detachable solid PCB items

are required to be removed, which by no means constitutes the greatest extent practical. 

The Navy suggested— without any confirming study of actual vessel PCB removal 

results—that for smaller vessels, up to 30 pounds of pure PCBs could be left onboard and for 

larger vessels, up to 100 pounds could be left after remediation without significant effects on 

marine life. The Navy then assumed that their remediation practices would lead to a worst case 

scenario in which 100 pounds of pure PCBs would be left onboard large SINKEX vessels but 

“would pose no notable threat to benthic organisms.”86

These rough estimates are not vessel specific and there exists the high probability, given 

the lack of PCB inventory taken on each vessel, that quantities of PCB contaminated material 

could significantly exceed the Navy’s rough estimates. For example, as seen with the EXORISKANY, an estimated 722 pounds of solid PCBs were believed to be left intact for sinking, 

found in approximately 362,240 pounds of electric cable insulation, 31,700 pounds of fiberglass 

 

84 U.S. Navy, Sea 21 Navy Inactive Ships Program(SINKEX) 

http://www.navsea.navy.mil/teamships/Inactiveships/SINKEX/default.aspx

85See Agreement between Elsie L. Munsell, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and Robert H. Wayland III, 

Director, EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds(Aug. 2, 1999).

86 U.S. EPA, Decision Memorandum: EPA Regulation of PCBs on Vessels Used for Navy Sinking Exercises (Sept. 

7, 1999). 
28

bulkhead insulation and 284,044 pounds of contaminated paint.87 722 pounds of solid PCBs left 

intact for sinking is well above the Navy’s 100 pound estimate for large vessels. There is no 

evidence to show that the level of remediation performed on SINKEX vessels is substantially 

more extensive than that performed for the EX-ORISKANY, which remains the only sunken 

vessel in which extensive sampling, modeling and post-sinking monitoring has been conducted. 

Of course, the PCB levels on this vessel both significantly exceeded the Navy’s SINKEX estimate 

of 100 pounds for large vessels and the PCBs present in that vessel leached into the marine 

environment and led to PCB levels in fish that rendered them unsafe for human consumption. 

Moreover, as discussed above, established ocean transport mechanisms allow for the transport 

of PCBs from the deep ocean to shallow marine ecosystems.

The current SINKEX remediation practices were developed in 1999 and were based on 

the Sunken Vessel Study that assessed the impacts of a single SINKEX vessel, the ExAGERHOLM, sixteen years after the vessel’s 1982 sinking, the Modeling Study of March 1994, 

and the PCB leachability laboratory study based on sediment samples. These three pieces of 

evidence are the basis for the current General Permit. 

This permit has allowed more than 100 vessels to be sunk to date. Unfortunately, the 

permit is based on what has proven to be inaccurate assumptions both about the quantity of 

PCBs remaining on SINKEX vessels and about the availability of the PCBs to the marine 

environment. New findings by EPA and others in the scientific community now fully 

acknowledge that solid PCBs leach into the marine environment and are taken up by fish and 

other aquatic life. PCBs can then be transferred to humans as humans digest these contaminated 

fish, or may bioaccumulate up the food chain in various marine species. In addition, the 

available evidence indicates that the amount of PCBs that remain on SINKEX vessels is likely 

much higher than the estimates that form the basis for the current permit. These new findings

 

87 J. Dodrill, K. Mille, B. Horn, & R. Turpin, Progress report summarizing the reef fish sampling, PCB analysis 

results and visual monitoring associated with the Oriskany Reef, a decommissioned former Navy aircraft carrier 

sunk in 2006 as an artificial reef in the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico off Pensacola, Florida (Apr. 13, 2011).
29

show there exists a clear risk to public health and the marine environment from SINKEX ship 

disposal under the MPRSA general permit that has not been addressed or considered by EPA.88 

The significant adverse effects of leached PCBs on human health and welfare, fisheries 

resources, marine ecosystems, and the persistence and permanence of PCBs once released all 

demonstrate that continued dumping of PCB-contaminated ships is not consistent with the 

MPRSA criteria for ocean dumping,89 especially where the evidence regarding the quantities of 

PCBs being disposed is unreliable and likely much too low. Accordingly, the Administrator must 

review and revoke or substantially amend the MPRSA general permit for SINKEX.90 

B. TSCA Waiver For SINKEX Is Not Warranted.

SINKEX now operates under a special permit under MPRSA, which requires the PCB 

contaminated vessels be sunk a minimum of 50 nautical miles from land. The act of 

transporting PCB contaminated vessels beyond U.S. territorial waters to SINKEX locations is 

considered export of PCB material for disposal purposes, and is therefore under normal 

circumstances prohibited under TSCA. According to the EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides 

and Toxic Substances, “If EPA were to regulate SINKEX under TSCA, SINKEX would be 

unlawful, and subject to citizen suit . . . ”

91

 However, as discussed above, any PCBs that remain 

on SINKEX vessels in compliance with the general permit under MPRSA are not subject to 

TSCA regulations due to the exemption granted by EPA signed by Administrator Carol Browner 

in 1999. This exemption was granted without any public process wherein the public could 

submit comments or be heard on the matter. Section 9(b) does not provide a lawful waiver from 

TSCA because the MPRSA does not adequately protect against the risk of PCB leaching into the 

marine environment, for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, if EPA does not amend the 

 

88 33 U.S.C. § 1412(a). 

89 Id. § 1414(d).

90 33 U.S.C. § 1414(d); see also 40 C.F.R. § 223.2 to 223.5 (procedure for limiting or revoking permits).

91 U.S. EPA, Decision Memorandum: EPA Regulation of PCBs on Vessels Used for Navy Sinking Exercises (Sept. 

7, 1999).
30

existing MPRSA permit to comply fully with the requirements of the MPRSA, EPA must enact 

rules under TSCA that adequately regulate the export for disposal of PCBs via SINKEX by 

requiring that no disposed materials contain PCBs in concentrations greater than 50 parts per 

million, and that PCB-contaminated materials in concentrations less than 50 parts per million 

are removed to the greatest extent practicable. 

EPA’s position regarding a legislative exemption from TSCA for Navy vessels supports 

this conclusion. With the Navy’s success in achieving a TSCA exemption for all SINKEX vessels 

in 1999, it requested a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2004 that would 

exempt both the Navy and the recipients of any naval vessel from all sections of TSCA when 

vessels were sunk as artificial reefs. EPA opposed this proposal and responded sharply, and 

Congress sided with the EPA. However, the EPA’s stand against this requested TSCA exemption 

is contradictory to the previously granted TSCA exemption for SINKEX. In opposing this 

legislative exemption, EPA stated:

“EPA opposes this proposal, which removes safeguards and allows for sinking 

of vessels that could pose future clean-up problems and unreasonable risks to 

human health and the environment. This provision would exempt both the Navy 

and the recipients of any naval vessels from all sections of the Toxic Substances 

Control Act, not just the PCB prohibitions under TSCA section 6(e), as long as 

the ship is used as an artificial reef. It would also limit any future liability on the 

part of the Navy for remedial action under CERCLA and exempt vessels from 

regulations as hazardous waste as provided by the Solid Waste Disposal Act 

(SWDA).”92

It remains unclear why EPA did not take a similar stance for the SINKEX program. While EPA 

supports the continuation of the artificial reefing program only if it is subject to TSCA, which 

requires PCBs be remediated to below 50 ppm and disallows PCB export for disposal, it has 

granted a TSCA exemption for SINKEX based on an inadequate MRSPA permit. 

EPA should re-examine the TSCA exemption for SINKEX while it reviews and revises the 

MPRSA permit for the program. It should revoke the exemption and enact TSCA rules requiring 

 

92 EPA’s Comments on DoD’s FY04 Legislative Proposals to the National Defense Authorization Act, available 

athttp://www.cpeo.org/pubs/EPA%20RRPI%20Response.pdf
31

strict remediation of SINKEX vessels unless the MPRSA permit is substantially revised to 

protect human health and the marine environment.

C. Additional Study Is Needed to Determine the Full Effects of PCBs on SINKEX 

Vessels

As discussed above, to date only a single SINKEX vessel – the Ex-AGERHOLM – has 

been the subject of any significant post-sinking monitoring or study to assess whether and how 

PCBs are leaching from sunk vessels and harming the marine environment, but the scope of this 

study was limited in critical respects and so did not provide sufficient information to make firm 

conclusions about risks posed by PCBs on SINKEX vessels. Moreover, the results of the ExAGERHOLM study are significantly undermined by the results of the post-sinking monitoring 

study on the Ex-ORISKANY artificial reef in Florida. 

Under EPA regulations, the ocean dumping of contaminants such as PCBs is permissible 

only in “trace” amounts, such that they “will not cause significant undesirable effects, including 

the possibility of danger associated with their bioaccumulation in marine organisms.” 93 Under 

both the MPRSA and TSCA, EPA should require additional study and monitoring of post-sink 

sites to determine what PCB concentrations constitute “trace” contaminants.94 If such 

additional study demonstrates that a level lower than 50 parts per million is necessary to protect 

human health and the marine environment, then EPA should amend the MPRSA general permit 

and/or enact TSCA regulations requiring such levels. 

D. SINKEX Remediation Standards Are Unlawful And Do Not Meet Requirements 

Of International Law

The SINKEX permit under the MPRSA and the exemption under TSCA do not provide 

proper implementation of the London Convention which prohibits the dumping of any Annex I 

substance, such as PCBs, except as trace contaminants (e.g. PCB concentrations that will not 

cause an unacceptable adverse impact after dumping in terms of persistence, toxicity, and 

 

93 See 40 C.F.R. § 227.6. 

94 See 15 U.S.C. § 2603; 33 U.S.C. § 1414(d). 
32

bioaccumulation). Considering all SINKEX vessels constructed prior to 1985 likely contain PCB 

concentrations in excess of 50 ppm even after remediation, the EPA’s general permit for 

SINKEX fails to meet the requirements of the London Convention to which the U.S. is a party.

The ocean dumping of inadequately remediated vessels via SINKEX does not fulfill the 

Convention’s environmental protection aim of not creating “hazards to human health, to harm 

living resources and marine life . . . ” Nor are SINKEX vessels free of contamination by Article 

4’s priority blacklisted materials. Article 4 of the Convention prohibits the dumping of materials 

listed in Annex I, otherwise known as the black list. This list includes the contaminants most 

likely to cause great harm to living resources, marine life and human health due to their 

hazardous characteristics. These hazardous characteristics include not only toxicity, but the 

propensity to bio-accumulate and bio-magnify in the human food chain. 

This black list includes all organohalogen compounds (e.g. PCBs), except in cases where 

only “trace contaminants” are present. According to the EPA, 

“Trace contaminants are not defined in terms of numerical chemical limits, but rather 

in terms of persistence, toxicity, and bioaccumulation that will not cause an unacceptable 

adverse impact after dumping. By this definition of trace contaminants, marine organisms are 

regarded, in a sense, as analytical instruments for determining the environmentally adverse 

consequences (if any) of any contaminants present. This definition of trace contaminants 

requires that the lack of unacceptable adverse effect in biological studies be taken to mean that 

contaminants are absent, or present only in amounts and/or forms that are not 

environmentally active, and therefore do not exceed the trace contaminant definition.... 

Because assessment of trace contaminants depends upon the determination of the potential for 

effects, an assessment cannot be made until the impact evaluation is completed and 

interpreted. Only then can effects, and thus the presence of materials as other than trace 

contaminants, be determined.”95

The Ex-ORISKANY post-sinking fish data, as described in the above sections, clearly 

shows effects from PCBs that have leached from the vessel and have been taken up by fish at the 

reef site. This PCB fish uptake confirms the presence of PCB materials in amounts beyond trace 

contaminant parameters within the Ex-ORISKANY, by EPA’s own definition. Considering all 

U.S. naval vessels constructed prior to 1985 likely contain PCB concentrations in excess of 50 

 

95 U.S. EPA, Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal, EPA 503/8-91/001, (Feb. 1991) 

available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/gbook/gbook.pdf
33

parts per million (ppm), and considering the Ex-ORISKANY PCB remediation requirements 

were comparable in scope with that of SINKEX PCB remediation requirements, it can be 

reasonably concluded that many SINKEX vessels are sunk with solid matrix PCBs above trace 

contaminant parameters. Moreover, the remediation requirements for the Ex-ORISKANY are 

similar to the remediation requirements under the general permit and related agreements for 

SINKEX: the Ex-ORISKANY was sunk with electric cables, bulkhead insulation and 

contaminated paint, and similarly the General Permit for SINKEX allows: “The Navy may leave 

in place wire cables, felt gaskets and other felt materials that are bonded in bolted flanges or 

mounted under heavy equipment, paints, adhesives, rubber mounts and gaskets and other 

objects in which the Navy has found PCBs...” Accordingly, vessels sunk through SINKEX likely 

fail to meet the trace contaminant requisite as did the sinking of the Ex-ORISKANY. Finally, the 

no effect threshold for PCB exposure is extremely difficult to ascertain as many scientists agree 

that there is no safe level of exposure to PCBs due to the bioaccumulation and health related 

effects on marine organisms. 

In sum, sinking contaminated ships is not consistent with the aim of the London 

Convention. SINKEX is in fact detrimental to marine life and sustainable fish populations from 

ecosystem contamination.

ACTIONS NEEDED TO CORRECT EPA’S LEGAL VIOLATIONS 

For the reasons discussed above, pursuant to the petition provisions of the APA96 and the 

TSCA,97 BAN, Sierra Club, and Center for Biological Diversity request that the EPA amend the 

existing MPRSA permit for SINKEX or, in the alternative, enact TSCA rules:

1. Effective immediately, requiring all PCB-contaminated materials in 

concentrations of 50 parts per million or greater to be removed from 

SINKEX vessels prior to sinking; 

 

96 5 U.S.C. § 553(e). 

97 15 U.S.C. § 2620(a).
34

2. Requiring all PCB-contaminated materials in concentrations of less 

than 50 parts per million to be removed from SINKEX vessels prior 

to sinking to the maximum extent practicable; and 

3. Requiring additional studies to determine whether PCBcontaminated materials in concentrations of less than 50 parts per 

million constitute “trace” contaminants, such that their dumping 

will not cause undesirable effects including the possibility of 

bioaccumulation. Such additional studies should include the most 

recent data on the toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation of 

PCBs and should include monitoring at multiple recent sink sites.

Studies should also assess the releases of other potentially 

hazardous pollutants into the marine environment from the SINKEX 

program including heavy metals, asbestos and radioactive 

substances.
35

SOURCES

Adams, J.A. and S. Slaughter-Williams. 1988. The effects of PCBs on fertilization and morphology 

in Arbacia punctulata. Water Air Soil Pullot. 38: 299-310. 

Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry; 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/pha/pha.asp?docid=1159&pg=2

American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists Briefs, The Rediscovery of the Free Lunch and 

Spontaneous Generation: “Is Artificial Reef Construction Out of Control,” 1987. 

Annex A, Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

Article III (2), Decision C(87)2/Final, Convention on the Organization for Economic Cooperation 

and Development.

Article V, Convention on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Belanger, S.E., D.S. Cherry, and J. Cairns, Jr. 1990. Functional and pathological impairment of 

Japanese Medaka (Oryzias latipes) by long-term asbestos exposure. Aquat. Toxicol. 17: 133-154

Belanger, S.E., K. Schurr, D.A. Allen, and A.F. Gohara. 1986. Effects of chrysotile asbestos on coho 

salmon and green sunfish: evidence of pathological stress. Environ. Res. 39: 74-85. 

Brouwer, A., P.J.H. Reijnders, and J.H. Koeman. 1989. Polychlorinated biphenol (PCB)-

contaminated fish induces vitamin A and thyroid hormone deficiency in the common seal. Aquatic 

Toxicology. 15: 99-106.

Brown, Lester Plan B 2.0, New York: W.W. Norton, 2006. p. 109

Clark, R.B. 1992. Marine Pollution. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 172. 

Clayton, Mark, March 19, 2008. The Christian Science Monitor, Ships sail to scrap yards via legal 

loophole

Coale, K.H., S.E. Fitzwater, R.M. Gordon, K.S. Johnson, and R.T. Barber. 1996. Control of 

community growth and export production by upwelled iron in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Lett. 

Nature 379: 621-624.

Crude Oil and Commodity Prices, 4/21/2010, http://www.oil-price.net/

DAKOFA - Danish Competence Centre on Waste

Decision Memorandum – EPA Regulation of PCBs on Vessels Used for Navy Sinking Exercises, 

September 7, 1999

den Beston, P.J., J.M.L. Elenbaas, J.R. Maas, S.J. Dieleman, H.J. Herwig, and P.A. Voogt. 1991. 

Effects of cadmium and polychlorinated biphenyls on steroid metabolism and cytochrome P-450 

monooxygenase system in the sea star Asterias rubens L. AquaticToxicology. 20: 95-100.

Divemaster News, USS Hoyt Vandenberg Still to be Sunk, August 17, 2008. 

http://www.divemaster.com/diving-news/uss-hoyt-vandenberg-still-to-be-sunk_32823.html
36

Dodrill, Jon and Turpin, Robert. PCB Monitoring on the ORISKANY Reef (Pat II. Initial Sampling 

Event). 2008. http://www.sdafs.org/FLAFS/PDF/October%202008%20issue.pdf

Dodrill, Jon, Artificial Reef Program Administrator, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission, ARTIFICIAL REEF PROGRAM SUMMARY OVERVIEW, September 2007

EPA, 2001; A Guide for Ship Scrappers: Tips for Regulatory Compliance; Appendix A, A-7

EPA’s comments on DoD’s FY04 Legislative Proposals to the National Defense Authorization Act: 

http://www.cpeo.org/pubs/EPA%20RRPI%20Response.pdf

EPA, Consumer Factsheet on: Polychlorinated Byphenils. 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/dw_contamfs/pcbs.html 

EPA, Habitat Protection: Final Guidance. 

http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/oceans/habitat/artificialreefs/documents/introduction.html

EPA, Terms of Environment: Glossary, Abbreviations, and Acronyms (Revised December 1997)

EPA/NAVY Memorandum of Agreement, Ocean Disposal, 1996. 

http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/inactiveships/pdf/1996_EPA_Agreement.pdf

Executive Order 13101--Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and 

Federal Acquisition. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=1998_register&docid=fr16se98-113

FAO (2004) State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA) - SOFIA 2004. FAO Fisheries 

Department

Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 126/Monday, June 30, 2008/Notices

Feldman, Bob. War on Earth, Dollars and Sense, March/April 2003. Also see the Military Toxics 

Project, www.miltoxproj.org.

FORRESTAL Museum President, Mr. William H. Natter, Jr., letter to USS FORRESTAL Museum 

members

Foti, Frank J. 2000. Statement of Frank J. Foti, President and Chief Executive Officer, Cascade 

General, Inc., before the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Subcommittee 

on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation. 

Froescheis, Oliver, Ralf Looser, Gregor M. Cailliet, Walter M. Jarman and Karlheinz Ballschmiter, 

2000. The deep-sea as a final global sink of semivolatile persistent organic pollutants? Part I: PCBs 

in surface and deep-sea dwelling fish of the North and South Atlantic and the Monterey Bay 

Canyon (California), Chemosphere, Volume 40, Issue 6, March 2000, Pages 651-660.

Frost, B.W. 1996. Phytoplankton bloom on iron rations. Nature 383: 475-476.

Georgia Straight Alliance, Artificial Reefs and Fish Habitats: What the Experts Say 

http://www.georgiastrait.org/?q=node/604

Government Accountability Office, Federal Surplus Ships: Government Efforts to Address the 
37

Growing Backlog of Ships Awaiting Disposal; October 1998.

Government Accountability Office: Improved Program Management Needed to Address Timely 

Disposal of Obsolete Ships, March 2005; http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05264.pdf

Hazen and Sawyer Associates. 2001. Socioeconomic study of reefs in southeast Florida. Report 

for Broward, Palm Beach , Miami-Dae, and Monroe Counties, the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Pg 259 

Hess, Rushworth, Hynes, Peters; Rand Report, Disposal Options for Ships, 2001

House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, D.C. Wednesday, May 24, 2000. 

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/trans/hpw106-93.000/hpw106-93_1.HTM

International Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other 

Matter, 1985. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1985/16.html

Kawasaki, T. 1984. The distribution and behavior of fishes in the artificial reef fishing grounds; IJI, 

Biological process in the ocean; R. Marushige, ed. Koseisha Koseikaku, Tokyo, pp. 197-200. (Engl. 

transl. by T. Otsu, 1987, 7 p., Transl. No. 109)

Leach Rate Study, Prospective Risk Assessment Model for ex-ORISKANY, US Navy Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act, 40 CFR part 261.2(b)(1)

Lukens, R.R. and Selberg, C. February 2004. Guidelines for Marine Artificial Reef Materials, 

Second Edition. GSMFC. Ocean Springs, MS. 

http://www.gsmfc.org/publications/GSMFC%20Number%20121.pdf

Mackay, D., W.Y. Shiu, and K.C. Ma, 1992. Illustrated handbook of physical-chemical properties 

and environmental fate for organic chemicals, Vol. I, Monoaromatic Hydrocarbons, 

Chlorobenzens, and PCBs. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 697pp.

Maritime Administration, Report on the Program for Scrapping Obsolete Vessels, Report MA2000-067, March 10, 2000.

Matsunaga, K., Y. Suzuki, K. Kuma, and I. Kudo. 1994. Diffusion of Fe(II) from an iron 

propagation cage and its effect on tissue iron and pigments of macroalgae on the cage. J.Appl. 

Phycol. 6: 397-403.

Mille, Keith; FWC Division of Marine Fisheries Management Artificial Reef Program

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Site Characterization – Biological Communities and 

Assemblages – Pelagic Zone. http://montereybay.noaa.gov/sitechar/pelagic5.html

National Defense Reserve Fleet Inventory, February 28, 2010; 

http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/NDRF_Inventory.pdf

National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984, Title II. Appendix B, Public Law 98-632

National Guidance: Best Management Practices for Preparing Vessels Intended to Create Artificial 
38

Reefs, May 2006

Naval Sea Systems Command Report to Congress. Report on Plan for Disposal of Certain Vessels 

Stricken from the Naval Vessel Register (NVR). April 2009.

Navy Inactive Ships Program, Frequently Asked Questions, Artificial Reefing 

http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/inactiveships/Artificial_Reefing/FAQ_reefing.htm

Navy Ship Disposal Faq. 

http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/inactiveships/Ship_Disposal/FAQ_disposal.htm

New Rules Project, A Program of the Institute of Local Self-Reliance

Nijkerk, Alfred, March 2006. Shipbreaking International, Shipbreaking USA.

NOAA FISHERIES SERVICE BEGINS PROCESS TO END OVERFISHING BY 2010, New 

Magnuson-Stevens Act First Step to Implementation / Comments Sought

Official letter from Carol Browner, EPA Administrator, to Richard Danzig, Secretary of the Navy, 

September 13, 1999.

Olsen, Erik, New York Times, Out of Commission Above Water, but Not Below It, August 18, 2008. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/science/earth/19ship.html

Opdal, A.F., Godo, O.R., Bergstad, O.A., Fiksen, O, 2007. Distribution, identity, and possible 

processes sustaining meso- and bathypelagic scattering layers on the northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge

ORISKANY Post-sinking Monitoring Study 3 1⁄2 year progress report data, 2006-2009

1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and 

Other Matter of 29 December 1972. 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/2006/11.html

Public Law 103-451; National Maritime Heritage Act, 1994

Public Law 106–398; National Defense Authorization, 2001

Public Law 107-314 

Public Law 92-402 

Recycling and Economic Development, A Review of Existing Literature on Job Creation, Capital 

Investment, and Tax Revenue, CASCADIA, 2009

Report of the Interagency Panel on Ship Scrapping, 1998

Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2009 

Report to Congress on the Progress of the Vessel Disposal Program, Department of 

Transportation, Maritime Administration, October 2005

Report to Congress on the Progress of the Vessel Disposal Program, US Department of 

Transportation, Maritime Administration, 2001
39

Report to Congress on the Progress of the Vessel Disposal Program, US Department of 

Transportation, Maritime Administration, 2002

Report to Congress on the Progress of the Vessel Disposal Program, US Department of 

Transportation, Maritime Administration, 2007

Report to Congress on the Progress of the Vessel Disposal Program, US Department of 

Transportation, Maritime Administration, January 2008

Roberts, Kathleen. Public Affairs Specialist, Naval Sea Systems Command

Shively, Dale, Texas Parks and Wildlife, Texas Clipper: A New Artificial Reef in the Gulf of Mexico

Sterner, G.R.; Naval Sea Systems Command; Official Correspondence with Captain Charles Wendt, 

USAF; Subject: “Resumption of Sinking Exercises” (5 August 1994); http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA323505&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf (pg. 5).

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. 1997. 

http://www.pops.int/documents/convtext/convtext_en.pdf

Takeda, S. 1998. Influence of iron availability on nutrient consumption ratio of diatoms in oceanic 

waters. Nature 393: 774-777. 

Tazmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute http://www.redmap.org.au/resources/impact-ofclimate-change-on-the-marine-environment/upwelling-and-downwelling

TCC Artificial Reef Subcommittee. January 1997. Guidelines for Marine Artificial Reef Materials. 

GSMFC. Ocean Springs, MS.

Thompson, D.R. 1990. Metal levels in marine vertebrates. In R.W. Furness and P.S. Rainbow 

(eds.), Heavy Metals in the Marine Environment. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, pp 143- 183. 

Tomczak, M.,1998. Shelf and Coastal Oceanography. 

http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/ShelfCoast/notes/chapter06.html

Tungett, David, Captain US Navy, Program Manager, Navy Inactive Ships Program in letter to USS 

FORRESTAL Musuem President, Mr. William H. Natter, Jr., 11 October 2006

U.S. Maritime Administration, Notice of Assessment, Suisun Bay, June 2008

U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Maritime Administration Ship Disposal Program, 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/10004010.2006.html

United States Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2005. Maritime Administration: 

Improved Program Management Needed to Address Timely Disposal of Obsolete Ships. March 

2005. GAO-05-264. Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Readiness, 

Committee on Armed Services.

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. “Appendix G: Development of Screening Levels 

and Cleanup Levels for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).” PCB Strategy for the Commonwealth 

of Virginia. January 2005.
40

Vogel, Steve. U.S. Forced to Pay Recyclers to Take Old Merchant Ships, The Washington Post, 

September 7, 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/09/06/AR2009090601989.html

Waste & Climate Change Background document for the ISWA & DAKOFA conference on Waste & 

Climate Change 3-4 December 2009 in Copenhagen - to be held in connection to the UN Climate 

Summit COP 15 in Copenhagen 7-18 December 2009

Wells, M.L. N.M. Price, and K.W. Bruland. 1995. Iron chemistry in seawater and its relationship to 

phytoplankton: a workshop report. Mar. Chem. 48: 157-182.

Woodhead, A.D., R.B. Setlow, and V. Pond. 1983. The effects of chronic exposure to asbestos fibers 

in the Amazon molly, Poecelia Formosa. Environ. International. 9:173-176

Yamane, T., Status and future plans of artificial reef projects in Japan. Bull. Mar. Sci. 43.
i

APPENDIX

Comments on:

PCBs in Sunken ex-Navy Ships

Prepared by 

Environmental Stewardship Concepts, LLC

for

Basel Action Network

August 25, 2010

Summary

PCBs are persistent bioaccumulative chemicals that have demonstrated carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects on animals and human health. SINKEX is the government program for 

allowing the scuttling of obsolete ships as a result of military exercises. There are several 

technical concerns regarding potential PCB releases to the environment found in the studies and 

reports that have been used to support the implementation of the SINKEX general permit 

granted under the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act in 1999. First, a number of 

ships have been sunk in US waters for the purpose of reef-building, yet there is a paucity of 

empirical data collected from these ships on the extent of leaching of toxic chemicals (metals 

and organics) into water, sediment and biota. Recently released data on fish tissue levels of 

PCBs at the Oriskany reef site compared to a reference reef of concrete indicate that the reefed 

ship may be a source of substantial PCB pollution in fish. Second, the models upon which 

estimates of PCB leaching are based are overly simplified and do not include complex features of 

the ecological system, including water density layering, localized currents, upwellings, and 

sedimentation. All of these features can be and are affected by the presence of a ship as large as 

the Oriskany which may in fact dominate the local hydrography. Considering the latest data on 

PCBs in fish, the current state of knowledge concerning the persistent toxic effects of PCBs, the 

SINKEX program is not currently practiced in a manner that adequately protects the 

environment and human health.

Wildlife Exposure to PCBs

According to the study “Assessing the Ecological Risk of Creating Artificial Reefs from exWarships” by Johnston et al. (2003), contaminants of concern can enter the intercontinental 

shelf system through releases from the sunken warship as well as from inputs from the coastal 

waters. Direct and indirection exposure to these chemicals can result from a contaminated 

habitat, where indirect exposure occurs through a process of bioaccumulation up the food chain. 

Bioaccumulation exposes organisms higher on the food chain to greater concentrations of PCBs 

through their multiple prey items. For example, demersal fish, such as flounder, are bottom 

feeders and live on the sea floor. Grouper, snapper, and black sea bass dwell near the bottom. 

All feed on various invertebrates that inhabit the reef and sea floor, and invertebrates in turn eat 

prey items that are in direct contact with the PCBs found in the sand and sediment (see Figure 

1); some invertebrates consume sediment. If the recreational anglers catch and eat these fish, 

they are also exposed to the PCBs through their diet. 

Other higher trophic level organisms such as fish-eating birds, omnivorous birds, and marine 

mammals are exposed to PCBs via the prey items that have PCBs in their tissues. Generally, the 

typical PCB levels increase by a factor of 10- to 100-fold when ascending major consumption 

levels in a food web (Gobas et al., 1995; Rice et al., 2003). Specifically, Wasserman (Wasserman 
ii

et al., 1979; Rice et al., 2003) reported that for marine food webs, zooplankton range from < 

0.003 μg/g to 1 μg/g, whereas top consumers, such as seals and fish, had tissue PCB levels 

ranging from 0.03 μg/g to 212 μg/g. Therefore, PCBs that are abundant in lower trophic levels, 

will be amplified through the food chain to levels that can adversely affect higher trophic level 

organisms (see also Rice et al., 2003 for comprehensive treatment of the topic). 

Also, there is a direct relationship between fish distribution and abundance and the PCBs at the 

newly created reef site. This interaction is not random and will occur because fish will be 

attracted to the ship site and the food resources there. These same processes, bioaccumulation 

and biomagnification within the food web, occur in both shallow water ecosystems and deep 

ocean water systems with similar exposure pathways and similar outcomes for the assessment 

endpoints.

(Johnston et al., 2003)

Regulations and Wildlife

The EPA has the authority to approve risk-based disposal of PCBs, regulated under Sec. 761.62 

Disposal of PCB bulk product waste (40 CFR 761.62), if a finding of no unreasonable risk of 

injury to human health and the environment can be made. The sinking of the Navy vessel the 

Oriskany was sunk under this risk-based disposal permit. This permitting is not subject to the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) which requires remediation of PCBs of 50 ppm or greater. 

Similarly, the Navy’s SINKEX program is generally permitted under the Marine Protection, 

Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) which does not require remediation to 50 ppm as is 

required of artificial reefing vessels under TSCA. In theory, PCBs at any concentration in any 

materials can be a significant source and therefore subject to regulatory removal requirements.

There is no fundamentally scientific basis for setting protective standards or processes of 

determining protective levels of PCBs on the basis of program design, including water depth for 

a ship sinking. PCB (and other toxic chemical) remediation needs to be based on leaching, 

toxicology, persistence and accumulation and other scientific matters, no matter the purpose of 
iii

the sinking. There is little to no difference in PCB bioavailability between deep sea and shallow 

waters because the same chemical, physical and biological mechanisms operate in all cases. In 

both cases, corrosion and breakdown of the vessel will occur over time, making all of the PCB 

containing solid materials biologically available through water and sediment uptake. The 

factors that form the basis for determining the risks of PCBs have developed substantially in 

recent years, providing data on toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation that was simply not 

available 30 years ago when many PCB standards were first set under TSCA.

PCBs in Solid Materials

Because the breakdown processes and bioavailability of PCBs will be similar whether a vessel is 

sunk in shallow or deep ocean waters, studies used to regulate PCBs on vessels used for artificial 

reefs should also be considered in regulating PCBs on vessels used in the SINKEX program. The 

Navy report “Investigation of PCB Release-Rates from Selected Shipboard Solid Materials 

Under Laboratory-Simulated Shallow Ocean (Artificial Reef) Environments” (George et al., 

2006) estimated that the Ex-Vermillion Navy vessel had potentially 9.5 lbs to 267 lbs of PCBs 

onboard. Based on the highest amount, 50% of PCBs were present in felt gasket material, 25% 

in electrical cables, 12% in the paint, 10% in residual oils and greases, and 0.1% in the bulkhead 

insulation. For the lowest estimated total pounds of PCBs, paints accounted for 85% of the mass 

of PCBs on the ship and electric cable accounted for 9%. 

The Navy report also calculated the release rate of the PCBs from the solid materials onboard. 

They determined that for the highest estimated total pounds of PCBs, although bulkhead 

insulation only accounted for 0.1% of the total PCB mass on the ship, it accounted for about 13% 

of the PCBs released from the ship. However, for the lower estimated total pounds of PCBs, 

paints contained 85% of the mass of PCBs and accounted for 68% of the PCBs released (George 

et al., 2006). If regulations to protect the marine environment are to be based on their own 

calculation of release rates, logically, extensive paint removal should be a larger part of the 

vessel preparation and clean up. On a technical level, the release of toxic chemicals is 

determined by both the rate of release (PCB/pound material) as well as the total bulk release 

(PCB/unit time), taking into account the total quantity of contaminated material as well as the 

rate at which that material releases PCBs (or other toxic chemicals).

Based on these leach rates for PCBs from solids aboard the Ex-Vermillion, the Navy reached the 

conclusion that removal of the materials with the highest leach rates would result in the greatest 

reduction in PCB loading per unit material removed. Their leach rate model showed that 

removing .001 kg of pure Aroclor 1254 (PCB) would reduce leaching by the same amount as 

removing 0.143 kg of bulkhead insulation, 1.855 kg of foam insulation, 3.8 kg of felt gaskets, 5.3 

kg of rubber products, 56.5 kg of paint, or 80 kg of electrical cable (George et al., 2006). For 

each material listed, the weight of the material removed demonstrates an advantageous return 

on the elimination of PCBs from the vessel. Ultimately, physical and chemical breakdown of 

every aspect of the ship will occur over time and will become a part of the marine environment, 

increasing the interaction between PCBs and the marine environment.

The Final Report on PCB Source Term Estimates for ex-Oriskany by the Navy Inactive Ships 

Program (PEO, 2006) outlined the several sources of PCBs in the materials on the vessel. The 

amount of PCBs contained within the solid materials onboard ranged from 377.5 kg to 699.6 kg. 

The sources of PCBs onboard included the bulkhead insulation, rubber products (door gaskets, 

pipe hangers, mounts, etc.), paints, electrical cable insulation, ventilation gaskets, and 

lubricants. The electrical cable accounted for 95% of the total PCB loading from the Oriskany 

into the marine environment, with bulkhead insulation the second highest at 3%.
iv

Reduction of PCB loading due to removal of items as part of the preparation process outlined in 

the EPA’s “National Guidance: Best Management Practices for Preparing Vessels Intended to 

Create Artificial Reefs: Polychlorinated Biphenyls” (U.S. EPA, May 2006) requires removal of 

100% of the lubricants, 5% of the paint, 72.6% of the bulkhead insulation and only 10% of the 

electrical cable, and no removal of rubber products or ventilation gaskets. The EPA makes the 

false assumption that low level PCB content in solid materials is permissible. Both the paint and 

lubricant make similar contributions to the PCB load on the ship, but supposedly 100% of the 

lubricants are removed and only 5% of the paint. 

Following removal based on the EPA BMP, the total amount of PCBs remaining ranged from 

327.79 kg to 608.85 kg, where more than 97% of the PCBs remaining on the vessel are 

associated with electrical cables. No risk-based permit or otherwise should allow for the cables 

to remain onboard. The EPA’s “National Guidance: Best Management Practices for Preparing 

Vessels Intended to Create Artificial Reefs” admits that “Because PCB sampling and analytical 

procedures can be expensive and time consuming, there may be situations when the cost of 

sampling and analysis far exceeds the cost for removal and disposal. In some cases, vessel-toreef projects have shown that removal of all electrical cables and wires suspected of containing 

PCBs was the most economical course of action.”

Time Dynamic Model

The Final Report Ex-ORISKANY Artificial Reef Project Time Dynamic Model (TDM) (PEO, 

2006) predicts concentrations of PCBs in abiotic media in the marine environment that may 

result from PCB releases from the ex-ORISKANY, but only for the first two years after sinking. 

This model was necessary, however, to fill in the first two years for the Prospective Risk 

Assessment Model (PRAM), which only modeled biotic predictions after the first two years of 

sinking a vessel for use as a reef. 

However, there are several over-simplifications within the TDM model. The TDM treats the 

ship as a single point source and the surrounding waters as discrete boxes, each subsequent box 

located at a greater distance from the source. Assuming complete mixing and complete 

exchange between the “boxes” in each time step of the model is not dynamic enough for the 

conditions found in the Gulf of Mexico. Building the model using applied hydrodynamic data 

would create a more realistic model. 

Additionally, the overly simplified pycnocline and mixing assumptions ignore seasonal 

differences, where the water is vertically mixed in the winter and stratified in the summer. The 

simple two layer model certainly neglects the changes in pycnocline strength and the possible 

effects of storms to move and mix large amounts of water and sediment over short periods of 

time.

The assumption of instantaneous mixing and equilibration within the ship is also most certainly 

not correct. The TDM assumes 99% equilibrium concentrations within 24 hours without any 

evidence to support the validity of this assumption. Another concern is the total lack of 

movement of PCB-laden sediments in the model, where sediments are likely the largest PCB 

sink. There will also be a continuous flux in PCB adsorption and desorption between the water 

and the sediment within each bin. Equally important is the assumption that no sediment occurs 

in the ship, which is not correct.

The TDM assumes first order kinetics between the ship sources, water, TSS, and DOC. This 

assumption is also likely wrong. PCBs and PCDD/PCDFs function on other than first order 

kinetics in most systems. Overall, the model is too simplistic in moving PCBs in a linear and 
v

sequential fashion from the ship’s sources into water, DOC and TSS, and then ultimately to 

marine wildlife. 

Another concern is the impact of the vessel size relative to the water column depth. In section 

1.3.3, the authors discuss concerns about the upwelling and turbulence that may be generated by

the presence of the vessel sitting on the sea floor. The vessel is 888 feet long, 90 feet wide and 

about 90 feet high, but 135 feet at its highest. It would be likely to assume that the vessel has a 

bigger impact on the immediate dynamics than the bin hydrodynamic model allows for.

There are problems with the collection of leaching rate data presented in Table 1 of the TDM 

(PEO, 2006). The lack of any detectable leaching of octochlorobiphenyl is remarkable and 

should have resulted in running more trials. The zero results for octochlorobiphenyl 

underestimates the leach rate. Depending on the conditions of the experimental work, if the 

rates were not measured over a sufficiently long period of time, then the model and all the 

estimates are potentially inaccurate and underestimate the physical-chemical loss of PCBs from 

the ship into the marine environment. 

Sediment Data

Another weakness in the data used to support SINKEX is that the sediment data used for the 

Navy leach rate studies for the Vermilion and Oriskany came from the Agerholm, a single 

sunken vessel site in which they took sediment samples. The Ex-Agerholm was sunk in 1982 but 

the study that was the basis for SINKEX permitting (Johnston et al.) was published in 2003. 

Undoubtedly, PCB levels would be much higher had the study taken place more recently to the 

sinking of the Ex-Agerholm. Additional studies should be done to collect more sediment data 

and to verify the sediment sampling methods used at the Agerholm site.

Field-collected data and choice of observed (test) animal species has inherent limitations in 

sampling design and possible outcomes, and could possibly misrepresent exposure or impacts. 

The Johnston et al. (2003) study does not define the invertebrates used in the tissue analysis. 

Identification of invertebrate species used in the study is important based on their individual 

physiology, habitat use, and prey items. For example, oysters are not mobile and may better 

correlate exposure effects of a certain area. Also, while the assumption that food chain receptors 

would consume 100% of their diet from the Navy vessel reef may be conservative, the omission 

of direct ingestion of water and sediment are not conservative, especially for benthic feeders. 

Two of the most significant limitations of field toxicity are the inability to confirm (or perhaps 

even determine) the exposure conditions and the complete inability to measure or confirm 

mortalities that will be lost to natural predation and decomposition processes.

Ultimately, the conclusions in Johnston et al. do not logically follow from the data provided in 

the study. This study is not sufficient to determine the health of an ex-vessel reef and should not 

be the basis for decisions about acceptable PCB levels.

In the PCB Strategy for the Commonwealth of Virginia created by the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality (2005), a subgroup was formed to develop screening levels and cleanup 

levels for PCBs in soils and sediments. The purpose of the screening levels is to help prioritize 

PCB contaminated sites, but the subgroup cautioned against relying solely on the soil and 

sediment screening levels alone:

 

“... the subgroup recognized that the risk-based screening levels would likely be too low 

to be an effective prioritization tool. The risk-based approaches confirmed that very low 
vi

levels of PCBs (1.8 to 49 ppb) in sediments could result in elevated fish tissue 

concentrations” (VA DEQ, 2005)

This approach is counter to the Navy’s reliance on the Agerholm study sediment data, on which 

they based their modeling. Further, the subgroup notes that in many cases, the small sample 

size may account for the lack of elevated sediment data. The hitting or missing of PCBs during 

sediment collection is a reality in the sediment risk-based approach.

Also, because PCBs bioaccumulate as well as biomagnify up the food chain (as noted in the 

above “Wildlife Exposure to PCBs” section), high PCB levels in marine sediments are not 

necessary for the presence of higher PCB levels in fish. The data collected in the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality Fish Tissue and Sediment Monitoring program show that 

there is often no direct correlation between sediment levels and fish tissue levels. The subgroup 

also concludes that local conditions may be such that the low levels of PCBs that do occur in the 

sediments are bioavailable (VA DEQ, 2005). 

New Data

The Ex-USS Oriskany was sunk as an artificial reef 23 nautical miles off the coast of Florida in 

2006 and was prepared for sinking in much the same way as SINKEX vessels. All liquid PCBs 

were removed from the vessel prior to sinking; therefore all documented PCB leaching is from 

solid PCBs. In an Oriskany post-sinking monitoring study that has not yet been completed by 

the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), 33% of all fish sampled postsinking in the vicinity of the Oriskany had PCB concentrations above 20 parts per billion (ppb), 

the EPA screening level (Table 1). Twenty-one percent of all fish sampled post-sinking had PCB 

concentrations above 50 ppb, the Florida Department of Health fish advisory threshold. PCB 

concentrations in fish samples increased 1,446% on average from pre-sinking to post-sinking.

The FWC study also included two sampling events in 2008 on a control reef (Table 2); these 

results were also just released in April 2010. The control reef is a concrete bridge rubble reef 

that is 8 miles from the Oriskany site. The control reef samples were taken on the same days as 

the Oriskany samples in 2008. PCB concentrations in fish caught at the Oriskany site in 2008 

were more than 932%, on average, higher than PCB concentrations in fish caught at the control 

reef.

Table 1. All Six Sampling Events Through Nov. 2009

Pre-Sinking 

Oriskany Site

Post-Sinking 

Oriskany Site

Red Snapper Samples 17 157

Red Snapper Mean PCB 

Concentration

2.36 ppb 54 ppb

Total Samples 62 180

Total Mean PCB Concentration 3.8 ppb 58.75 ppb

Total Fish Above 20 ppb (EPA 

Screening Level)

2 (gag & king 

mackerel

60

Total Fish Above 50 ppb 

(Florida DoH Fish Advisory 

Threshold)

1 (king mackerel) 38
vii

In contrast to these results from the FWC study, the Final Report Ex-Oriskany Artificial Reef 

Project Ecological Risk Assessment conducted by the Navy (PEO, 2006) stated that the no effect 

threshold for total PCB was exceeded only in dolphins, cormorants, and herring gulls. Contact 

with elevated PCB levels in water inside the vessel was determined to be the predominant route 

of exposure and transfer of PCBs through the food web. However, despite these findings, the 

conclusion of the Ex-Oriskany Artificial Reef ERA deems the levels of PCBs in the tissues of 

organisms associated with the reef and in the diet of reef consumers acceptable. These 

conclusions do not logically follow the data collected and does not address the unacceptable 

level of risk to human health and the environment. 

Table 2. 2008 Control Reef Samples vs. 2008 Oriskany Reef 

Samples

2008 Control 

Reef

2008 

Oriskany Reef

Red Snapper Samples 45 60

Red Snapper Mean PCB 

Concentration

7.6 ppb 55.22 ppb

Total Samples 61 61

Total Mean PCB Concentration 7.89 ppb 81.44 ppb

Total Fish Above 20 ppb (EPA 

Screening Level)

5 16

Total Fish Above 50 ppb 

(Florida DoH Fish Advisory 

Threshold)

0 12

Conclusions

 Based on the recent data for PCB levels in fish tissue at the Oriskany reef site and a 

control reef, general permitting under MPRSA underestimates the impact of PCBs found 

in solid materials left on-board a vessel.

 The release of PCBs from ships such as the Oriskany causes an unacceptable risk to 

human health and the environment.

 The basic processes behind leaching of toxic chemicals and subsequent movement into 

the food web, with harmful consequences to the environment and human health, are not 

affected by depth such that less protective measures can be afforded vessels sunk in 

deeper waters.

 The Ex-Agerholm study is not adequate enough data for building a sediment-based 

hydrological model for ships sunk under SINKEX or in other waters that are in 

fundamentally different hydrological and oceanographic regions.

 The Time Dynamic Model does not adequately express the complexity of the coastal 

system off the coast of Pensacola and is too simplistic to adequately model the impacts of 

the ex-Oriskany.
viii

 The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) study provides new data 

that contradicts the findings of previous Naval studies. These new data add to the 

paucity of research done on sunken Naval vessels. 

 PCBs, once introduced to a system, continuously cycle through, become bioavailable, and 

bioaccumulate up the food chain. The only remedy is to limit or prevent their 

introduction to the marine environment.

Appendix References

George, R.D., C.R. In, R.K. Johnston, C.A. Kurtz, P.F. Seligman, R.D. Gauthier, and 

W.J. Wild. 2006. Investigation of PCB Release-Rates from Selected Shipboard 

Solid Materials Under Laboratory-Simulated Shallow Ocean (Artificial Reef) 

Environments. Technical Report 1936. SSC San Diego, CA. 230 pp.

Gobas, A. P. C., M. N. Graggen, and X. Zhang. 1995. Time response of the Lake 

Ontario ecosystem to virtual elimination of PCBs, Environmental Science and 

Technology 29(8): 2038.

Johnston, R. K., H. Halkola, W. Wild, R. Gauthier, R. George, C. In, M. Bell, & R. 

Martore. 2003. Assessing the Ecological Risk of Creating Artificial Reefs from 

ex-Warships, Proceedings of Oceans p.1001-1008.

Program Executive Office, Navy Inactive Ships Program. Final Report ExORISKANY Artificial Reef Project Ecological Risk Assessment. January 2006.

Program Executive Office, Navy Inactive Ships Program. Final Report ExORISKANY Artifical Reef Project Time Dynamic Model (TDM). January 2006.

Program Executive Office, Navy Inactive Ships Program. Final Report Polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCB) Source Term Estimates for ex-ORISKANY (CVA 34) Rev. 5. 

January 24, 2006. 

Rice, C.P., P. W. O’Keefe, T. J. Kubiak. Chapter 18: Sources, Pathways and Effects of 

PCBs, Dioxins, and Dibenzofurans. Handbook of Ecotoxicology, Second Edition. 

Lewis Publishers. 2003.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Toxicological profile for 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). Public Health Service Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry. November 2000.

U.S. EPA. Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/mprsa/mprsaenfstatreq.html#statute

U.S. EPA. National Guidance: Best Management Practices for Preparing Vessels 

Intended to Create Artificial Reefs Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). National 

Guidance: Best Management Practices for Preparing Vessels Intended to Create 

Artificial Reefs (EPA 842-B-06-002) May 2006.

http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/habitat/artificialreefs/index.html.
ix

U.S. EPA. Summary of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 

http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/tsca.html

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. “Appendix G: Development of Screening 

Levels and Cleanup Levels for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).” PCB Strategy 

for the Commonwealth of Virginia. January 2005.

Wasserman, M., D. Wasserman, S. Cucos, and J. H. Miller. 1979. World PCBs map: 

Storage and effects in Man and His Biologic Environment in the 1970s, Ann. 

N.Y. Acad. Sci. p. 320.