# SIERRA

CLuB

FOUNDED 1892

11m Puckett Executive Director

Network 5 T 2 

### r · rı E^0


### _., 7 

### 7 i5^Z'^ u^ ı ·. . , rT',CI C')^'^^ 

## =:^ __, 

# ^F^ Lisa P. Jackson Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1 200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460
RE: PETITION TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT FROM RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE NAVY'S SINKING EXERCISE PROGRAM (SINKEX) Dear Administrator Jackson, Please find enclosed a petition to EPA requesting immediate action under the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act to protect human health and the environment from risks associated with the Navy's sinking exercise program (SINKEX). The Sierra Club and Basel Action Network jointly submit this petition for your consideration. We appreciate your prompt attention to the issues raised and we look forward to working with EPA on this important matter. 

# Ci)

David A. Scott

Vice President Sierra Club

cc: Nancy Stoner Acting Assistant Administrator Office of Water U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1 200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20460

Sierra Club Basel Action Network 85 Second Street, Second Floor 206 First Avenue S., Suite 410 San Francisco, CA 94105 Seattle, WA 98104 P: 415.977.5500 I F: 415.977.5799 f www.sierraclub.org P: 206.652.5555 f F: 206.652.5750 I www.ban.org

# 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)

SIERRA CLUB AND BASEL ACTION NETWORK

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 Jim Puckett Executive Director Basel Action Network 206 First Avenue S., Suite 410

Seattle, WA 981 04 N 206.652.5555 

# I F: 206.652.5750

www.ban.orgTABLE OF CONTENTS

PETITION TO EPA: REQUEST FOR ACTION


## ............................................................................... 1
EXECUTIVESUMMARY


## ................................................................................................................ 2
BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................................4
I. EPA ADMINISTRATOR AUTHORIZED GENERAL PERMIT FOR SINKEX........
A. SINKEX Is Subject To MPRSA General Permit But Exempt From TSCA ..4 II. THE MARINE DISPOSAL OF PCBS VIA SINKEX POSES SIGNIFICANT RISKS TO HUMAN HEALTH AND THE MARINE ENVIRONME 

## N T


## .............................. 5 A. PCBs Are A Highly Toxic And Pervasive Pollutant


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


## ................. 8
C. PCBs May Be Transported From The Deep Ocean To Shallow Marine Ecosystems


## ................................................................................................. 11
D. Past Navy Studies Finding No Risk From PCBs On SINKEX Vessels Have Been Discredited Or Conclusively Contradicted


## .............................. 14
III. FEDERAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW STRICTLY REGULATE THE DISPOSAL OF PCBS IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT ...................................17
A. Federal Law Requires EPA To Protect Human Health And The Marine Environment From PCB Contamination


## ................................................... 17
B. International Law Governing Ocean Dumping


## ......................................... 19
IV. EPA IS VIOLATING FEDERAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW BY ALLOWING THE MARINE DISPOSAL OF PCBS VIA SINKEX


## ............................................... 22
A. The SINICEX General Permit Fails To Protect Human Health And The Marine Environment 

## And Is Inconsistent With The MPRSA Criteria.....


## . 22
B. TSCA Waiver For SINKEX Is Not Warranted


## .......................................... 25
C. SINKEX Remediation Standards Are Unlawful 

## And Do Not Meet Requirements Of International Law


## .......................................................... 26
ACTIONS NEEDED TO CORRECT EPA'S LEGAL VIOLATIONS


## ............................................... 28
SOURCES


## ........................................................................................................................................ I
APPENDIX


## ...................................................................................................................................... I

### PETITION TO EPA: REQUEST FOR ACTION

The Base! Action Network and Sierra Club 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 Acts and TScA, the Basel Action Network and Sierra Club request that EPA:

1. Amend the MPRSA general permit for SINKEX to comply with the MPRSA by reflecting the latest scientific knowledge about the amount of PCBs disposed through the SINKEX program and about leaching of PCBs from sunken ships. At a minimum, the permit should be amended to require: a. Materials containing PCBs to be removed to the "maximum extent practicable" with the best

. urrent techniques; and h. Remethation prior to sinking to the London Convention's "trace contaminant" requi.r"ment. Or in the alternative:

2. Revoke the current TSCAwaiverfor SINKEX and enact ru]es under TSCA governing the marine disposal of ships containing PCEs that require: a. 1't'Iaterials containing PCB must be removed to the "maximum extent practicable" with the best current techniques; and b. Remediation prior to sinking to the London Convention's "trace contaminant" requirement.

'33 U.S.C. § 1401-1445.
2 15 u.s.c. § 2620(a). 5 U.S.C. § 553(e).

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Navy's SINKEX prograni allows the Navy to fire on inactive naval warships to practice gunnery and torpedo accnracyywhile also disposing of unwanted ships at sea: From 1970-1999 SINKEX accounted for only 8%Iof:all Navy vessel disposals, but from 2b00-2008 it accounted for 70% 

### of all disposals. Ocean disposal

. of obsolete vessels via SINKEX is deemed a cost-effective disposal strategy by the Federal government and is permittedby a series of exemptions fromexisting environmental laws. EPA acknowledges that these vesselsare sunkMhile still containingtoxic materials within their composition, including asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), iron, lead paint and antifoulrng paint, yet EPA allows exemptions4br 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 aild igndr obligàtidh thide& international law. The negative health and environmental iMpacts of Pefis arwelF-kñown. PCBs are persistent bioaccumulative chemicals that have demonstrated carcinogenic and non-carcinogeniceffects on animals andhuman health: PCBs'arendA-flathmbls and cheiiically stable, so after they are released ii into the envirohtheñt they pèrsistThr mati'yeaY:4büctOtl1 heirtongevitasaffi&lecule, and their

- -I tuI ''' i. 

### capacitytdbeattractedtofattykissueafid'aeètflnit1att!iflthetMrii1efoOdehthn, 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 released at the level allowed by the SINKEX program 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 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 PCB5 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 models upon

US. EPA. PCRs: Cancer Dose-Response Assessment and Application to Environmental Mixtures (1996). EPA/600/P96/00! F, 1996. available at http://ctpuh.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisp!ayefm?dcid12486which 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 TSCA waiver that is based on it, are inadequate and contrary to law.5 Accordingly ; BAN and Sierra Club hereby petitions EPA to amend the existing MPRSA permit to require removal of all materials containing PCBs to the maximum extent practicable and to require remediation to the London Convention's trace contaminant requirement. In the alternative, BAN and Sierra Club petitions EPA to revoke the existing TS.A waiver for the SINKEX program and 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 remediation to the London Convention's trace contaminant requirement. Because the protections BAN and Sierra Club are requesting are required under both the MPRSA 2nd 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 TSA based on the amended MPRSA pLnit is apprcpriate. 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; 6 the request that EPA revoke the TSA waiver and enact rules governing the marine disposal of PCBs is submitted pursuant to the citizen's petition provision of TSA.7 Under the TSG& citizen's petition provision, EPA must grant or deny this petition

Dr. Peter deFur, Environmentat Stewardship Concepts, LLC (See Appendk) 65 U.S.C. § 553(e). is U.S.C. § 2620(a).within 90 days. 8 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 and Sierra Club may seek review of the existing TSCA waiver because it is based on the currently inadequate MPRSA -permit. I BACKGROUND I. EPA ADMINISTRATOR AUTHORIZED GENERAL PERMIT FOR SINKEX
A. SINKEX Is. Subject To MPRSA General Permit But Exem p t-From TSA In 1977, the EPA issued a general permit for SINKEX under sectiOn 102 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) hatremained in effect for approximatelyItwelve
years. 9 . 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 devel0p.a t%yo1phase.research program to-assess therisks associated with the ocean .dispoaJ of PCBs thçclOgb- the .SINKEX program -and to seek an ekemption from TSCA. These studies were-conducted by the-Nzivy rather than an -independent third party. In March 1994, the Navy began an• ecological assessment based solely on aviailable literature-on PCB . - solubility, temperature,and partitioning cbarat!teristics, to thodel-the risks associated with PCB leachingand concluded thattthere was "no hatablethreat-tabenthic organisnis"° resulting fiom sinking naval vessels at sea (hereinafterthe 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 enfotee TSeA against SINKEX fOr a limited numbr.of SINKEX vessels. Meanwhile, the Navy was required to conduct the Sunken Vessel Study to -, substantiate -the findings of the 1994 Modeling-Sthd' with empirical data, again paid thr by the agency seeking exemption.

- -- .. -. -;.
. - - In the Spring of 1999 the Navy presented 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.

14 § 2620(b). "Ibis permit is codified at 40 ('FR 229.2.

tO Decision Memorandum - EPA Regulation of PCBs on Vessels Used for Navy Sinking Exercises, September 7, 1999This study assessed the impacts of a single SINKEX vessel, the Ex-AGERHOLM, 16 years after the

vessel's 1982 sinking. It is unclear how representative the Ex-AGERHOLM is of other SINKEX vesselcandidates, nor is clear how leaching occurred in the initial 16 years following sinking. The ExAGERHOLM remains the only SINKEX vessel studied, the conclusions of which relied on sediment samples taken at three intervals and a PCII leachability laboratory study based on these sediment samples. The scope of this study was limited and did not provide sufficient information to make firm conclusions about PCB uptake into the marine food chain as fish sampling was not part of this study. In September 1999, under pressure from the Navy, the EPA Administrator reinstated the SINKEX program under a general permit authorized under MPRSA and determined that PCBs on SINKEX vessels should be regulated solely under the MPRSA, rather than both TSA 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 redued 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 deterntnes it is in the public interest to take action under TSCA. Under this authority, the actions taken by the Administrator inchided the full exemption of SINKEX from TS(A, under the assumption that SINKEX could adequately be regulated solely under MPRSA. Thus,

EPA concluded: "W€ believe there is no public irt-n'st in regulating the transport ation and disposal of P011s associated with SINKEX tinder TSCA..." 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 Hi g hly 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.

"Official letter from Carol Browner, EPA Administrator, to Richard Danzig. Secretary of the Navy, September 13, 1999.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that PCBs cause cancer in animals and are probable

carcinogens for humans. Other known significant ' ecological and human health effects of PCBs include neurotoxicity, reproduétive and develdpmental toxicity immune system suppression, liver damage, skin irritation, and endocrine disruption22:PCB5 are non-flammable and chemically stable, so after they are released into the environment they persist for manyyears. t3 The manufacture of PCBs has been banned in the United States due to their highly toxic effects andpersistence in the environment once released. PCBs are also a persistent organic pollutant (POP) targeted for global phase-out and action under the Stockholm ConventiOn.M Due to their longevity as a molecule, and their captty to be attracted to fatty tissue and accumulate in the marine food chain, PCBs are perhaps the griatest concern of all shipboard contaminants. PCBs bind to sediments, bioaccuniulatein fish and other animals, and biomagPi' in the food chain, creating hazards at all levels)$iAsa fresult; peOple ivho ingest, fish may be exposed to dangerous levels of PCBs.'' In fact,'due to the ts,dn's accumulation properties, manyscientists believe there is no safe level of exposure to PCBst' 7 ruf): - r . . Higher trophic level (higher in the foodehaip) organisms such as*isb4eating birds,! omnivorous birds, and-marine mammals-are exposed'to PCBsviatheir consumption of prey. Genei'ally,. the typièai PCB levels increasby'afactdtof w ! tO'ioo-fO1d vhen ascending major consumption levelsin a foodchain (Gobas'et al.199g): Spethtically, Wasserman etal. (a979)reported that for marine food webs, 2ooplankton range frOm < 0.003 g/g tol pg/g, whereas top consumèt such as seals and fish, had! ranges of PCB'frotñ O03 to 212 t/g.' Therefore, if PCBs are abundant in

12 jj EPA. PCBs: Cancer Dos-Respons Assessment and-Application to environmental Mixtures (1996). EPvt/600/P %/OOIF, 1996, available at http://cfpuh.epa.gov/nceaICFM/recordispy.cfm?deidI2486. Id.

4 Annex A, Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.
http://yosemite.epa.govfRIOIlRIBAL.NSF/af6d457l t3e2bl698825650fD07t I 80a1]e4127736563fc3a882571dh00661h151S tILE/9 I 0-F-99-00 I PCBS.pd I I , , '° National Guidance: Best Management Practices for Preparing Vessels Intended to Create Artificial Reels, May 2006, Pg. 35.

' 7 http:/!yosemite.epa.gov/rl0/o'oem.nsf/S8faI 1a231885et3882565000062d635/a9578719c73ad1de882569ed00782e89?OPC nDocurnent#reducelower trophic levels, they will be amplified through the food chain to levels that can adversely affect

higher trophic level organisms.'8 The EPA has characterized PCBs as "mutation-causing, cancer-causing, and teratogenic [meaning they can interfere with normal embryonic developmentJ."'9 The EPA notes "PCBs have beenshown to cause cancer in animals and have also been shown to cause a number of serious noncancer 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 PGB5.'*20 The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry2l 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. PCPs also have significant adverse effects on wildhfe: 1 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 nestbuilcling behavioral impairments in Mourning Doves; reduced hatchability in chicken eggs; and decline in sperm concentration in American Kestrels."2 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 pertu rbations were observed in trout

8 Dr. Peter deFur, Environmental Stewardship Concepts. LLC (See Appendix) ' http://www.epa.gov/RiSuper/ecologymtml/toxprofljes.htm#pcbs

20 National Guidance: Best Management Practices for Preparing Vessels Intended to Create Artificial Reefs, May 2006, Pg. 35.
21 http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov!hac/phalpha.asp?docicj=l I 59&pg=2
22 http:II w.epa.gov/R5Super/ecology/html/toxprofjles.htm#pehs

### liver cells and marine fishes; with anemia, hyperglycemia, and altered cholesterol metabolism in

brown troutfed diets with 10 

### PPM PCBS."23 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.24
B. PCBs From Sunk Vessels Leach Into The Marine Environment Recent studies demonstrate that PCBs onsunken vesselsleach into the marine environment at levels that pose a significant risk to human health and the marifle environment. The EX-ORISKANY was sunk off the coast of Florida in 2006 under a risk-based disposal permit from the EPA. All liquid PCBs were removed from the vessel prior to sinkihg; thereforealtdocumented PCB leaching is from solid PCBs. Environmental remediation left inta&mibtimated 722 pounds of solid PCBs found in approximately 362,240 pounds of electric cable'in g uIatiOn 31,7tO pounds of fiberglass bulkhead insulation and 284,044 pounds of contaminátCd paint-all left-onboardfor sinldng.25 Some material, such as the electric cable insulation, sampled áIhiglVs 19,00b ppmMTh an average of 1,500 ppm.26 The Navy claimed that the estimated 68o,000 pounds of PCB cmtaminated material, existing in hundreds of compartments at various eve!Sbel6W thtnain dEk, was not accessible unless the vessel was fully dismantled. Rather than dismanthuIaiid recycling the vesel at an approved domestic facility, the Navy identified remediation of these PUBs as cot-prohibitive and sought St exemption from the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) vi &Skad diposal perMit from EPA.'Thë Ndvy developed the Prospective Risk Assessment Model (PRAM) arid conducteda study at acost Of t$374 million to illustrate a limited risk to human health alid th Environment fmm theOcean diposal of PCBs during the sinking of the vessel. The EPA grnted the PCB risk-based disposal permit thereby allowing the EX-ORISKANY to be sunk with PCB oftboaEd

23 lit (citing U.S. EPA. 1980. Ambient water quality criteria for polychiorinated hiphenyls. EPA. 440/5-80.068). 24 Adams, iA. and S. Slaughter-Williams. 1988; Brouwer. A.,ct a! 1989; Clark, RB. 1992.;den Beston. et al 1991. ' Pape, UT. 2004. Polychlorinated hiphenyls (PCB) source term estimates for Ex-ORISKANY (CVA-34). Rev. 4 (Dcc. 7, 2004; as summarized by Jon Dodril! and Robert Turpin: H ORlSKANYReelPartllInitialSampIingEft'ort.pdf Id.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. The SINKEX general permit issued under 40 CFR 229 states "The Navy may leave in place wire cables,felt gaskets and other felt materials that are bonded in bo Ited flanges or mounted under heavy equipment, paints, adhesives, rubber mounts and gaskets and other objects in which the Navy has found PCBs..." 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 rcqured a post sinking monitoring program conducted by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (1W'IC); 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-ORTSKANY had P03 concentrations above 20 parts per billion (ppb), the EPA screening leveL27 21% of all fish sampled post-sinking had PCB concentrations above 50 ppb, the Florida Department of Health fish advisory Total PCB concentrations in fish samples increased 1,446% on average from pre-sinking to 1ostsi11king.29



### Table i: 

### EX-ORISKANY Site Fish PCB Sampling: Pre-sinldng vs. Post-sinking Concentrations 2006- 2009

*Gag and king mackerel - species a ae Eaples_______ I I '17 q

j7 Red Snapper Mean PCB Concentration Total Samples 2.36 ppb

62 _____

54ppb

i8o Total Mean P03 Concentration Total Fish Above 20 ppb (EPA Screening Level) 3.8 ppb

2 5875 ppb

Go Total Fish Above 50 ppb 

## I (Florida DoH Fish Advisory [mc eshold _____________ 1*

_______________ _________

38

________________

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

2 Id.

29 Id.

### Source: Table developed by 

### ciuthor using data provided by Florida Fish 

### and Wildljfe Conservation

Commission Post-Sinking Monitoring 

### Study 2006-2009
There were also two ampling 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 asthe 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 fih caught at the control reef.3° ! !



### Table : Fish PCBSampling: EXORISKANY Site vs. Control Reef Site 2008 Red Snapper SdthpIe !
, TI 45 ! '66 Red Snapper Mean PCB ConcentratOnJ ! ), 6ppb

Total Sa thØ 1e &5lJ ,: It I r ' 6F !

•' 55.22 ppb

6r Total Mçan PB Concentration, Total Fish Above go ppb (EPA 7.89 ppb

5 • 81.44 ppb

16 TQtal Fish Aho v e 50 ppb • (F1dda'DishAdi6t \ Tbreshpld)

___________ 1 12

___________ 

### Source: Table developed 

### by author usini ddtd jikothded 

### by Florwa Fish and Wildljfe ConserUation Commission Post-Sinking Monitoring Study
In contrast to thSe actual results from t1iF1Orida study, the FiiaVRepctt 

## E-OqSth Artificial Reef Project RcologicatThsk Assessmflt çnducted by the Nztiy (PEO, 2006) Wfate?that the no effect threshold for total PCB was exceeded only indolphins, cormdMnts, and herrthg gulls The study suggested PCB exposure lesels posed no risks to plants, inertebrates, fishes, sea turtles, and sharks/barracudas that could live, feed, and forage ott the reef: Further, the study concluded that due to the conservative estimates used in the analysis, it Ei 

### very unlikely that potential risks were under
estimated." 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

Dr. Peter deFur, Environmental Stewardship Concepts. LLC (See Appendix)predicted by the Navy and EPA. These levels pose elevated risks to human health and the

environment, a clear miscalculation by the Navy and EPA's pre-sinking assessments. 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 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) indicate a serious risk to human health and the marine environment from PCB exrosure. 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 Ma y Be Transported From The DespQan 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 he at that depth. The Navy has also suggested that the deep benthic environment has minimal chance of physical or biological transport to the shallow marthe ecosystem, However, the EPA acknowledges the physicochemical properties of PCBs, including low solubilit y in water, very high bioconcentration factor, and very low degradation rates, which determine their behavior in the environmenU' 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),32 These known characteristics suggest there are at least three scientifically acknowledged modes of

' Mackay, D., WY. Shiu, and K.C. Ma, 1992. Illustrated handbook ofphysica!-cheniical properties and environmental fate for organic chemicals, Vol. I, Monoaromatic Hydrocarbons, Chlorohenzens, and PCE3s. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 697pp. 32 Froescheis. Oliver, Ralf Looser, Oregor M. Cailliet, WalterM. Jarman and Karlheinz Ballschmiter, 2000, [he deep sea as a flnal global sink ofsemivoIaik persistent organic pollutants? Part I: PCBs in surface and deep-sea dwelling fish ot'the North and South Atlantic and the Monterey Bay Canyon (California), Chemosphere, Volume 40. Issue 6, March 2000. Pages 651-660.material transport from the deep ocean to shallow waters: Biographic Transport; lipwelling; 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, POPs released in one part of the-world can travel -to regions far from their soiute of origin Therefore, they are chemicals of-both local and global concern. "3 -

- - - - - - -

- - - -F - -Biographic Transport

- - - - - - - - -; Marine life that has taken up PCBs in deep water at the dksposal site -can transport PCB - material-via migration and predatory consumptiob o the shallow marine ecosysteni, which cab - - - continueup the food chainto humans. SunkehStNKE)cvesels typically restin thebathylpelagiezone (1,000-4,000 meters). Biographically speaking rgan1sn from each zone-have contact with organisms from the zoneabove and below, allOvsinMit-food thhsfér and PCB uptake through-the water column. "undoubtedly; there isconsidntbk trltlphic -[feeding} interactidn cxmonçj these larger epipelagic fishes [ albacore, blue shark, swordfish, etfl kiUzdtheir meo and bdth!jpelaàic counterparts during diel[dail y ]- uerticdl rnigrd&flJi-4' - - - 

### Hj -- - - - - Additionally, an assemblage of vertkallt nu-ratitg mathie-otganiss Called the Deep Scattering Layer (DSL), trave1fionithd deC13 deeM tdiheThhàllóv afni'ght td fed Where trophic
interacti6n odcIfrs ss DSLshae been recbrdedtta1reepthtd 3,000 metets 6 ------ -; - -- -- - The ocea* food webis mt rcohnectCd hVilmtS acting a quaternâiy [fourthtla1er] - U - consuth€rs (Consuming terfiar' consumers). PGfrsäbilIty to aci uniulate4n-the environment äII in - - organini means that orgänismsat higher trOihi'c levets'(higher in the fOod chain, uCh asthunians, are athfhéi risk of toxic concentratiobs of PCBs thdn -marine-organisms themselvea a7 -Marine mamñialS such as whales and- dolphins are also at

- higher rik - - Thc conceptual model used by the Navy-and MARAD to evaluate the human health and
' hitp://wwwepa.gov/oppt/trihal/pubsirrihalNeWSletlCrl o12.pdi

- - ' Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Sik Charactcrization - Biological Communitics and Assemblages - Pelagic Zone http:f/niontereyhay.noaa.gov/sitechar/pelagic5.html 'lB1p.

- - - - - - - ' OpdaI. AF., Godo, OR., Bergstad, O.A., Fiksen,.0, 2007. Distribution, identity, and-possible processes sustaining mesor and h-athvpelagic scattering layers on the northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge - - - - -: ' Banithouse. Glaser. Young, 2003ecological 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 he 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. 8 Upwelling can occur in coastal regions 

### as well as the open ocean, 39 and can be wind or tide-induced. Both types of upwelling do not typically occur in isolation, but rather coexist.° Open ocean winds cause surface waters to diverge from a region (causing upwelling) or to converge toward some region (causing downwelling).4' These movements are essential to stirring the ocean, delivering oxygen to depth, distributing heat, and bringing nutrients to the surface.42 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. Coastal upwelling occurs when wind blows parallel to the coast, deflecting surface water away from the coastline (Elcman 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.43 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.

Tomczak, M.,1998. Shelf and Coastal Oceanography. http:J/www.es.11inders.edu.au/

. mauom/Shclfcoasj/notes/chapteroo html http://oceanmotion.orgThtmlibackground/upwell ing-and-downwelling.htni ° Tomczak, M.,3998. Shelf and Coastal Occanography. http]/www.es.flinders.edu.aukmattom/shcltcoast!notesichaptero6.html ' http://oceanmotion.org/htmI/backgroiindmupwetling.anddownelljng hEm 42 Tazmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute http://www.redmap.org.au/resources/impact-of.cliniate-cfiange.on.the

. marine-environnicnt/upwelling-and-downweljjng ht1p://oceanmotion.org/htrnl/background/upwelling.and.dovnvelljnghtm3. Meridional Circulation Overturning

Deep ocean currents and water circulation produces dynamic uplift capable of delivering sediments, with 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.*i Similar to upwelling, this naturally occurring ocean circulation has not been assessed by the Navy as a potential PCB transport mechanism from sunken.navaFvesse1
D. Past Navy Studies Findin g No Risk From PCBs On SINKEX Vessels Have Been Discredited Or Conclusivel y Contradicted Dr. Peter deFur, an independent environmental scientist with expertise in ecological risk assessment, conducted 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 

### V

. .. . their introduction to the marine environment. His general comments and conclusions are summarized in this section, while his direct comments are included in the Appendix of this document. •.•lY•. .tfl,!.(ir1, The studies conducted on the Ex-ORISKANY prior to sinking analyzed the risks associated :u•. .t 

### . with sinking in shallow water ecosystems via artificial reefing; these studies are the most recent and

1 thorough pre-sinking assessments of any sunken naval vessel. Further, the Ex-ORISKANY 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 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

http://earthohservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=24!24reason, 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 Ex-ORISKANY 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. As described earlier in this document, 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 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. Yet this sediment data, coming from a single vessel site 16 years after sinking is the data the Navy relied on for leach rate studies on the Ex-ORISKANY, which has since been proven incorrect; as well this sediment data was the primary scientific support for SINKEX permitting. While the post-sinking Ex-ORISKANY findings clear!y suggest the EX-AGERI-IOLM 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 PC'B 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 app roaches confirmed that very low 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 Sunken Vessel 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 hittingor missing of PCBs during sediment collection is a reality in the sediment risk-based approach; AthO; because PCBs bioaccumulate as well as biomagnifyüp the food chain, high PCB levels in marine sediments are not necessary for the presence of higherPCB ievel in fish. The data collected in the Virginia Department of EnvironmentalQuality Fish Tissue and Sediment Monitoring program show that there is often no direct correlation between sediment ievds and fish tissue levels. The subgroup also concludes that local conditions maybe such that the low levels of PCBs that do octhr in the sediments are bioavailable (VA DE, 2005 j: i 7 In sum, there is fundamentally no scientific bais for Setthig 5rotectN'e standards or processes of determining protective levels of PCBs on the basis 'Of prograh deign,incluMng water depth for a ship sinking. PCB (arid other toxic chemlcal)rcndcationneedsto be based on leaching,toxicology, persistence and accumulation and other scientific matters, no Matter thepurposeof the sinking: There is little to no difference in PCB bioavailabiltvythetweeñ deeti sea and shallow Waters because the same chemical, physical and biological mechanismpèràte in 1 all caEes.ln bcth cases, corrosion and breakdown of the vessel will occur over time;making all of the PCBcontainingsolid materials biologically avâilablethroiigh water and sedithetit uptake. t. :' The factors that form the basis for deterthiniAg the risks of PCBs havedeveloped subtantially in recent years, providing data on toxicity, persIstehcC; and bioaccumulation that was simply hot available 30years ago when many PCB standai'ds\vétèfirst established in the U.S. Because the breakdown processes and bioavailability of PCBsaresimilar 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 pernit standards are inadequate and thould be revised.

' Dr. Peter deFur. Environmental Ste'•ardship Concepts, tiC (See Appendix)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.4 6 Accordingly, the MPRSA generally prohibits all ocean dumping unless authorized by permit issued pursuant to the Act. 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. 48 Additionally, the MPRSA provides that the Administrator shall review permits periodically and may revoke them if she finds that the dumping is no longer consistent with the criteria she must consider in approving permits initially.4 The MPRSA provides specific criteria thaL 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 dispersionof 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.

1401: S. Rep. 92-45! (Nov. 12, 991). °$ 1411, 1412(a). 4933 U.S.C. § 14 14(d): see also 40 C.F.R. § 223.2 to 223.5 (procedure tbr limiting or revoking permits).(G) Appropriate locations and methods of disposal or recycling, including land-based

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.5° The regulations implementing the MPRSA further elaborate on the criteria the Administrator will consider in determining whether to grant a permit for ocean dumping.51 Specifically, the regulations provide that "known carcinogens, mutagens, or teratogens or materials suspected to be carcinogens, mutagens, or teratogens by responsible scientific 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 sign jficant undesirable effects, including the possibility of danger associated wit/i their bioaccumulation in marine organisms."52

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. 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, codtairts strict requirements intended to phase out entirely the manufacture and use Of PCBsin theTJrnited States. First, it contains broad prohibitions on the manufacture, processing, commercial distribution, and use of PCB5. Section 6(e) also requires the Administrator to issue rules requiring PCBs to be marked with "clear and adequate warnings."55 Finally, the PCB provision of TSCA requires the Administrator to issue rules prescribing methods for the disposal of PCB5. 56 Accordingly; EPA has ena&ed extensive rules governing domestic

° 1412. ' 40 C.F.R. Pt. 227. ' 40 C.F.R. § 227.6(a).(h).

c3 IS U.S.C. § 2605(a). Id. § 2605(e), IS U.S.C. § 2605(e)( I IS U.S.C. § 2605(e)( 1 )(A).disposal of PCBs.57 Additionally, EPA has banned the eicport for disposal of PCBs in concentrations

greater than 5oppm without an exemption.8 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.5 9 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.6°
B. International Law Governin g 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 ljfe, to damage amenities or to interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea (Article I). 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, pl atfo r ms or other man-made structures, as well as the deliberate disposal of these vessels or platforms themselves." 6 ' The Convention offers an exception to this definition when "placement of matter serves an alternative pur p ose other than mere disposal thereof provided that such placement is not contrary to the aims of this Convention" (Article III (O(b)(ii)).

"40 C.F.R. § 761.50. Id. § 761.97; see also Id. § 761.20(c)(3) (authorizing distribution in commerce lhr the purposes of export for disposal if conducted in accordance c.ith the disposal rules). 15 U.S.C. § 260g.

6O Id. § 2620(b), °' http://www.imo.org/Conventions/contents.asp?topicjd25g&docidogIIn 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 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." Furthef, 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 envirnrnent to another. 62

2. 

### Stockholm ConventiOn The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Or ik- Pollufluits' is a global treaty created to protect human health and the environment frOm pCiisitent srganic pollutants (POPs). More than 100 countries negotiated this treaty in2001, withIihe U:Spht'ing i leadiiigrole in pushing for international action to ban or severely restrictthe produttion;\ue,isale and/or release of these chemicals. 6 3 The U.S. has not S-yet ratified the COxtVention, butthis is expected during the Obama Administration. , - :'•'''
. j2. Of thtwelve chemicals initially named in the ohvedtion,ine chemicals are listed in Annex A with the intent for global elimination, ef which PCBs are hame& 6 4 The Con'vention is une4thtdal in its mandate that Annex A chemicals, such as PUBs; tmust be destroyed-or itrevérsibly transforMed so that they no longer exhibit the characteristics ofPOP:- - Article 6(d) of the Convention provides that each Party must: "Take appropriate measures so that such wastes, including products and articles upon becoming
wastes, are:

http://www.austHi.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/2OO6/I I html '" http://vww.epa.gov/opptJtrihal/pubsIFrihalNewsletterI o12.pdf t4 Annex A. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.(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 niles, 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 Base! Convention was tasked with developing guidelines on PCB disposal, and in particular, selling low POP content levels to work cooperative!y 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 dsposal. 6 5 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 Organizaton for Economic Go-operation and Development

(OECD) On December 14, 1960, 20 nations adopted the Convention on the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to promote a global market economy. Today, the OECD is composed of 31 of the most developed nations in the world; the U.S. being one of the original members. In order to achieve its goals, the OECD can promulgate decisions that are generally binding on its members. 66 OECD Decision C(87)2/Final focuses specifically on the disposal of 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.° 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.

' http:/Jwww.baselint!puh/tecliguid/tg-dioxfuran.pdi Article V, Convention on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Article 111(2). Decision C(87)2/Final.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 dumpingby the Navy. 68 The general permitrequires the Navy, prior to sinking, to "remove to the maximum extent practicable all materials Which may degrade the marine environment. "6 A letter ofagreement 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 af 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,'areleftrinlplace:- :' -when (PcBJ objects cannot be pi'acticabli removed or their removal 'threatens thestructural integrity of the vessels so as to impede the SINKEX, the Navy may leave such items in place (e.g,felt materials thatarc bondS in bolted flanges ormounted under heavy equipment. certain paints and adhesives). Objects may be considered not capable ofpracticable removal 

## if equipment must be disassembled or removed for access to the objects, jf the objects must be removed by heat, chemical stripping, scraping, abrasive blasting orsintilarprOcethtor (fremovatwould ertdangerhuman safety or health even when conducted with protective equipment and reasonable safety measures. 7 ° ;.74.'..• While the permit requires appropriate measures be taken "to remove to the maximum extent practicable all materials which may degrade the marine enviromnent,"the Navy interprets 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,

-. . 1. ,,'--:J--- - floatable materials, mercury or fluorocarbon containing materials, and readily detachable solid
PCB items."71 Readily detachable or readily removable solid PCB items means items that can be

40 C.F.R. § 229.2; see also 33 U.S.C. § 1414(c) (authorizing Administrator to issue general permits). 40 C.F.R. § 229.2. See Agreement between Elsie L. Munsell. Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and Robert I-I. Wayland Ill, Director, EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, dated August 2. 1999: Navy Frequently Asked Questions, SINKEX; http://www.navsea.navy.millteamships/InactiveshipslSlNKEX/default:asPXremoved in a cost effective and efficient manner without the use of heat, chemical stripping, scraping

and abrasive blasting or similar processes.72 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 PGB items are required to be removed, which by no means suggests greatest extent practical. In fact, the SINKEX general permit issued by the EPA under 40 CFR 229 states 'The Navy may leave in place wire cables,felt gaskets and other felt materials that are bonded in boltedflanges or mounted under heavy equipment, paints, adhesives, rubber mounts and gaskets and other objects in which the Navy has found PCBs... The Navy suggested - without any confirming study of actual vessel PCB removal results -- that for smallervessels, up to 30pounds of pure PCI3s could be left onboard and for larger vessels, up
to 100 pounds could be left after remediation without si g nificant effects on marine life. r3 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 SINflX vessels but "would pose no notable threat to bent/tic organisms.'4. Jhese 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 EX-ORISKANY, 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, at,700 pounds of fiberglass bulkhead insulation and

7: http://www.maraddot.gov/documents/Apri 12001 ShipDisposalReportToCongress.pdf Sterner, GR.; Naval Sea Systems Command; Official Correspondence with Captain Charles Wendt, USAF; Subject: "Resumption of Sinking Exercises' (5 August 1994); http://www.dtic.mil/cgi

. bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA323505&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDocpdf(pg 17). ' Decision Memorandum - EPA Regulation of PCBs on Vessels Used for Navy Sinking Exercises. September 7, 1999 75 Sterner, CR.; Naval Sea Systems Command; Official Correspondence with Captain Charles Wendt, USAF; Subject: Resumption of Sinking Exercises" (5 August 1994): http://www.dtic.mil/cgi

. hin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA323505&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf(pg 17).284,044 pounds of contaminated paint. 76 722 pounds of solid PCBs left intact for sinking is well above

the Navy's ioo 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 samphng, 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 ioo pounds for large vessels and the PCBs present in that vessel leached into the marine environment and led to PCB levels in fish that render 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 mariue ecosystems. The current SINKEX reniediation practices were developed in 1999 and were based on the the Sunken Vessel Study, that assessed the impacts of a single SINKEX vessel, the Ex- EX-AGER}TOLM, 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 ioo vthselsto be sunk to date: Unfortunately, the permit is based on what has proven to be inaccurate assumption both about the quantity of PCBs remaining oh SINKEX vessels and about the availability of thePCBs to the marine environment. ? ' Neiv findings by EPA and others in the scientific community noW fully acknowledge that solid PCBs leach into the marine environment and arc taken up by fish. PCBs can then be transferred to humans as humans digest these contaminated fish. In addition, the available evidence indicates that the amount of PUBs that remain on SINKEXvessels is likely much higher than the estimates that form the basis for the current permit. These new findings 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

" Pape. L.T. 2004. Polychlorinated hiphenyls (PCI3) source term estimates Ibr Ex-ORISKANY (CVA-34). Rev. 4 (Dec. 7. 2004; as summarized by Jon Dodrill and Robert Turpin: ORlsKANyReetPartlllnitialSamplingEftbrt.pdf " Id.addressed or considered by EPA." 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, 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 STNKEX.8° 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. However, as mentioned above, any PCBs that rernaih 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. According to the EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, "If EPA were to regulate SINKEK under TSCA, SINKEK would be unlawful, and subject to citizen suit.... 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 existing MPRSA permit to comply fully with the requirements of the MPRSA, EPA must revoke the TSCA waiver and apply the rule banning the export for disposal of PCBs in concentrations greater than 5oppm to SINKEX. 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

33 U.S.C. § 1412(a). 7933 U.S.C. § 1414(d); see also 40 CFR. § 223.2 to 223.5 (procedure for limiting or revoking permits). '° 33 U.S.C. § 1414(d): see also 40 C.F.R. § 223.2 to 223.5 (procedure for limiting or revoking permils). "Official letter from Carol Browner, EPA Administrator, to Richard Danzig, Secretary of the Navy, September 13, 1999.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 remoucs safegtiards 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 ControlAct, not just the PCB prohibitions under TSOA -section 6(e), aslong 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 tegulaticlns as hazardous - - waste as provided by the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA)."$2 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

- -- .. . --.. .. . :i,. 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 unless the MPRSA permit is

- '.

... -.- H'-•'' substantially revised to protect human health and the marine environment.

-.

_ ;:-.' :. C. SINKEX Remediation Standards Are Unlawful And Do Not Meet Re q uirements Of - International Law

- -•,'- - - - - - - - - - -' - The SINKEX permit under the MPRSAJand the exemption under TSCA do not provide proper implementation of the London Convention which prohibith the 'dumping of any Annex I substance, such as PCBs, except as trace contaminants (e.gL PCB-concentrations that will not cause an - unacceptable adverse impact after dumping in terms of persistence, toxicity, and bioaccumulation). Considering all SINKEX vessels constructed prior to- 1979 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.

EPA's comments on DoD's FY04 Legislative Proposals to the National Defense Authorization Act: http://www.epeo.org/puhs/EPA%2ORRPT%2OResponse.pdlSINKEX does not fit within the confines of the Convention's environmental protection aim of

not creating "hazards to human health, to harm living resources and marine ljfe... Nor is free of contamination by Article 4'S priority blacklisted materials. Article 4 of the Convention prohibits the dumping of materials specified in Annex I, otherwise known as the black list. This list was created due to the strong likelihood that these contaminants will 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. 8 3 According to the EPA, "Trace contaminants are not defined in terms of numerical chemical limits, but rather in terms ofpersistence, toricity, 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 (f 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 potentialfor 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, "na The &-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. Considering all U.S. naval vessels constructed prior to 1979 likely contain PCB concentrations in excess of 50 parts per million (ppm), 8 and considering the ExORISKANY PCB remediation requirements were comparable in scope with that of SINKEX PCB remediatipn requirements, it can be reasonably concluded that SINKEX vessels are sunk with solid matrix PCBs above trace contaminant parameters. Recalling that the Ex-ORISKANY was sunk with electric cables, bulkhead insulation and contaminated paint and similarly the General Permit for SINKEX allows the following: "The Navy may leave in place wire cables,felt gaskets and otherfelt
http://www.austljieduau/aujothcr/dfat/treatjesy 1985/1 6.htrnl 'l hltp://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/gbookighook,pdç http://www.epa.gov/owow/occans/hahitauarificjtIreef/documents/pch.htmImaterials 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 PGBs...",vessels sunk through SINKEX 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 bioaccuinulation and health related effects on marine organisms.. It is very clear from the above account that sinking contaminated ships is not consistent with the aim of the London Convention but rather is a violation of the Convention basedon a misapplication of an exception. SINKEX is in fact detrimental to marine life and sustainable fish populations from ecosystem contamination.

ACTIONS NEEDED TO CORREGFEPA'S LEGAL VIOLATIONS For the reasons discussed above, pursuantto th petitioff provisions of the APA 86 and the TSCA, 8 BAN and Sierra Club requests that theEPA5



### 1. Amend the MPRSA general permit for SINKEXto comply with the MPRSA by reflecting the latest sciervtificknowledge about the amount of PCBs disposed through the SINKEX prOgram and about leaching of PCBs from sunken ships. At a minimum, the permit should be amended to require: a. Materials containing 1t3Bs to be removed to the "maximum extent practicable" with the best current techniques; and b. Remediation prior to sinking to the London Cont'entiohs "trace contaminant" requirement of PCBs.
Or in the alternative:

2. 

### Revoke the current TSCA waiver for SINKEX and enact rules governing the marine disposal of ships containing PCBs that include these Same requirements: a. Materials containing PCBs must be removed to the "maximum extent practicable" with the best current techniques; and b. Remediation prior to sinldng to the London Convention's "trace contaminant" requirement of PCBs.

Sb 5 U.S.C. § 553(e).

5 U.S.C. § 2620(a).Adams, J.A. and S. Slaughter-Williams. 1988. The effects of PCBs on fertilization and morphology

in Arbacia punciviata. 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-45o monooxygenase system in the sea star Asterias rubens L. AquaticToxicology. 20: 95-100. Divemaster News, USS Hoyt Vandenberg Sti]l to be Sunk, August 17, 2008. http://www.divemaster.com/diving-news/uss-hoyt-vandenberg-still-tobe.sunk32823.html

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

Event). 2008. http://www.sdafs.org/FLAFS/PDF/October%2o2008%2oissue.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%2ORRPI%2oResponse.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/artiflciaireefs/documents/introduction.html EPA, Terms of Environment: Glossary, Abbreviations, and Acronyms (Revised December 1997) EPA/NAVY Memorandum of Agreement, Ocean Dispo'sa1, 199f?.. http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/inactiveships/pdf/1996_EPAAgreernent.Pdf Executive Order 13101--Greening the QoverngieAt Throgh Waste Prevention, Recycling, andFederal Acquisition. htp://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cibin/getdoc cgt7dbnam=1998_reglstcr&dod1d=1r16se98-113 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

. . . H' i .- . '... ,.. . ( I 

### 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 MiritimeTransportation

. . Froescheis, Oliver, Ralf Looser, Gregor M. Caillief, Waltei a Jarman and Karlheinz Ballschrniter, 2000. The deep-sea as a final global sink of sernivolatilc persistent organic pollutants? Pat i:L 

### 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 Fih Habitats: What the Experts Say http ://www.georgiastrait.org/?q=node/604

. . . . Government Accountability Office, Federal Sürplüs Ships: Government Efforts to Address theGrowing 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/do5264.pdf Hazen and Sawyer Associates. 2001. Socioeconomic study of reefs in southeast Florida. Report for Broward, Palm Beach , Mianii-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/hpwloo-93.000/hpwlo6-93_1J-rcM International Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Mailer, 1985. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1985/16.htnil 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. (EngI. transl. by 1. 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 çFR 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%2oNumber%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 macroalgac on the cage. J.Appl. Phycol. 6: 397-403. Mile, 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/pelagic.html National Defense Reserve Fleet Inventory, February 28, 2010; http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/NDRFlnventory.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 ArtificialReefs, 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/inaetiveships/ArtificialReefing/FAQ_reefing.htm Navy Ship Disposal Faq. http://peoships.craiie.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, Ship breaking 

### USA. NOAA FISHERIES SERVICE BEGINS PROCESS TO EN OVERFISHING BY 2010, New Magnuson-Stevens Act First Step to Implementation! Comments Sought Official letter from Carol Browner, EPA Adlilinistrator, to Richard Danzig, Secretary of the Navy, September 13,1999. ,: Olsen, Erik, NewYork Times, Out of CommissioñAbove Water, bui NotBelow It, August 18,2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2oo8/o8/19/scence/earth/19ship.hti

. I Opdal, A.F., Godo, O.R., Bergstad, O.A., F!end,' 2007. Distrfbuti'oii, identity, and possible processes sustaining meso- and bathypelage scaflering layers on the northern, Mid-Atlantic Ridge ORISKANY Post-sinking Monitoring Study 3 1/2 y'ar 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/dfát/trëaties/200'6/i1.htnil . 

# .........,. Public Law 103-451; Nationil Maritime Heritage Act, 1994 , Public Law 106-398; National Defense Authorization, 2001 Public Law 1 07

- 3 1 4 ' , Public Law 92-402 ' "'' ",

. . Recycling and Economic Development, A Review of Existing Literature on Job Creation, Capital Investment, and Tax Revehue,'ASCADIA,2bo9 Report of the Interagency Panel onShip Scrapping, 1998 Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for F? 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, 2001Report 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" ( August 1994); http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GeffRDoc?AD=ADA323505&lncation=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-of

. climate-change-on-the-marine-environment/upwelling-and-downwelling TCC Artificial Reef Subcommittee. Januaiy '997. 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.fiinders.edu.au/-mattom/ShelfCoast/notesjchaptero6.html Tungett, David, Captain US Navy, Program Manager, Navy Inactive Ships Program in letter to USS FORRESTAL Musuem President, Mr. William H. Natter, Jr., ii 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/expectmorejdetail/l0004olo.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-o5-264. 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)." PGR Strategy for the Commonwealth of Virginia. January 2005.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/o9/06/AR2009o906o1989.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 2Q09 Wells, M.L. N.M. Price, and K.W. Bruland. 1995. Iron chemistry inseawater and its.relationship to phytoplankton: a workshop report. Mar. Cheni. 157-182. Woodhead, A.D., R.B. Setlow, and V. Pond. 183. 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 artificiil reef projects in Japan. Bull. Mar. Sci. 43.Comments on: PCBs in Sunken ex-Navy Ships

Prepared by Environmental Stewardship Concepts, LLC

for Base! Action Network

SummaryPCBs 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 resu!t 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 su5port the ithplementation of the SINKEX general permit granted under the Marine Protcction Research and Sanctuaries Act in 1999. First, a number of ships have been sunk in US waters for the purpose f reef-building, yet there is a paucity of empirical data collected from these ships on the extent of leaching of toc chemicals (metals and organics) into water, sediment and biota. Reeeit1y released data on fish tissue levels of PCBs at the Oriskany reef sitecompared to a reièreice reef of concrete indicate that the reefed ship may be a source of substantial PCB pollution iA fish. Second, the models upon which estimates of PCB leaching are based are overly simpiified and do not include complex features of the ecological system, including water density layering, localized currents, upwellings, and sedimentation. All of these feãturescan be and are affected by the presence of a ship as large as the Oriskany which may in fact dominate the locaihydrography. 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 hra thainer that adequately protects the environment and human health. Wildlife Exposure to PCBsAccording 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, arc bottom feeders and live on the seafloor. 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 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 trophie 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 too-fold when ascending major consumption levels in a food web (Gobas et al., 1995; Rice et al., 2003). Specifically, Wasserman (WassermanRelease umae Uptake Mechmüsin MethSñ&n

Coidatt ingestion Sorption/Settling__Upt*e Incidental Contac

no From Ship Epibenthic anti Benthic lnvert$xates Avian

Omnivore
Avian Piscivore
Mai Mamma p et al., 1979; Rice et al., 2003) reported that for marine food webs, zooplankton range from c 0.003 pig/g to 1 pg/g, whereas top consumers, such as seals and fish, had tissue PCB levels ranging from 0.03 Lg/g to 212 Jg/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.

Fig. 1. Exposure pathways and assessment endpoints. (Johnston et at., 2003). Regulations and Wildlife The EPA has the authority to approve risk-based disposal of PCBs regulated tinder 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 wade. The sinking of the Navy vessel the Oriskany was sunk under this risk-based disposal permit. This permitting is not subjc.t to the Toxic Substances Control Act TScA) which requires femediatioh of PCBs of 50 ppm or greater. Similarly, the Nav y 's SINKEX program is generally permitted under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) which doS 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 proceses 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 ofthe 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 hioavailability of PCBs will be similar whether a vessel is sunk in shallow or deep ocean waters, studies used to regulate PCBs 011 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, io% in residual oils and greases, and o.i% 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 af the PCBs from the solid materials onboard. They detcrmined that for the highest estimated total pounds of PCBs, although bulkhead insulation only accounted for o.i% of the tota 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 containcd 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 ch.emicals is determined by both the rate of release (PeE/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 .00i 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 So 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, inercasing 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 g% of the total PCB loading from the Oriskany into the marine environment, with bulkhead insulation the second highest at 3%.Reduction of PCB ]oading 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 i00% of the lubricants, 5% of thepaint, 72.6%of the bulkhead insulationand only io% 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 i00% 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" admith that "Because PCB sampling and analytical procedures can be expensive and time consuming, there may be situations when the cost ofsampling and analysis far exceeds the cost for rethoval 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." L 

### Time Dynamic Model The Final Report Ex-ORISKANY Artificial Reef Prdject Time Dynamic Model (TDM) (PEO, 2006) predicts concentrations of PCBs in abiotiC media in the marine environmentthat may result from PCB releases from the ex-ORISICANY, but only for the first two years after sinking. This model was necessary, however, to fill ifl th&firat two years for the'ProspectiveRisk Assessment Model (PRAM), which only mokleled hiotic predietionafter the first two ytars of sinking a vessel for use as a reeL However, there are several over-simnplification ivithIntheTDMthodel. The TDM treats the ship as a single point source and the surroUndhig waters as discrete boxes, each subsequent box located at a greater distance from the source. Auming complete mixing and complete exchange between the "boxes" in each time step Of the model is not dynamic em*rngh for the conditions found in the Gulf of Mexico. Building the model using applied hydrodynamic data would create a mare fealistic 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 stonus 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 betv.'een 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 andsequential 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 iof 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 octoch]orobiphenyl 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 ]oss 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 !evels would be much higher had the study taken place more recently to the sinking of the Ex-Agerhoim. Additional studies should be done to collect more sediment data and to verift the sediment sampling rnethodused 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) stud y 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 exaipple, oysters are not mobile and may better correlate exposure effects of a certain area. Alsc, while the assumption that food chain receptors would consume 

### i00% 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 ai. do not logically follow from the data provided in the study. This study is not sufficient to determine th 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 low2 (gag & king mackerel 1 (king mackerel) Total Mean PCB Concentration 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 Agerhoim 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 sedimentriskbased 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 frbm solid PCBs. In an Oriskany post-sinking nicinitoritig study that has not yet been completed bythe Florida Fish and Wildlife COnservation Commiion(FWG),-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 5° ppb, the Florida D'epartthent of Health fish advisoty 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 a); these results were also just released in April 2010. The ontroi 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 h fish caught at the Oriskany site in 2008 were more than 932%, on average, higher thhn PCB concentrations in fish caught at the control reef. 

### h,OV.2OQl

Red Snapper Samples Red Snapper Mean PCl Concentration

Total Fish Above 20 ppb (EPA Screening Level) Total Fish Above 50 ppb (Florida DoH Fish Advisory Threshold)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 Samnles

Red Snapper Samples 47 60 Red Snapper Mean PCB Concentration Total Samples Total Mean PCB ConcentratibT Total Fish Above 20 ppb (EPA Screening Level) 7.6 ppb

ôi 55.22 ppb

61 7.89 ppb

5 8i. ppb

i6 Total Fish Above 50 ppb (Florida DoH Fish Advisory Threshold) 0 12

• 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.• 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, RD., 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.iooi-ioo8.Program Executive Office, Navy Inactive Ships Program. Final Report ExORISKANY Artificial Reef ProjectEëologicálRisk Assessment. January 

### 2006.Program Executive Office, Navy Inactive Ships Program. Final Report ExORISKANY Artifical Reef Project Time Dynamic Model (mM). January 

### 2006. Program Executive Office, Navy Inactive Ships Program. Final Report Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) Source Term Estimates for ex-ORTSKANY (CVA 34) Rev. 

### 5. January 

### 24, 2006. Rice, C.P., P. W. O'Keefe, T. J. Kubiak. Chaptex 

### 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). 

### httn: / /www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/mprsa/niprsaenfgatrep.htmi#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 Artjficial Reefs (EPA 

### 842-B-o6-oo2) May 

### 2006. http: / /www.epa.gov/owow/occans/habitat/artificialreefs/index.html.U.S. EPA. Summary of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). httn: / /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 19708, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. p. 320.

### asel ction
etwork

Route 

# EPA Mail
To: 

### Jackson,Lisa M alistop: ARIEL RIOS SOUTH Department: IIOIA Phone: Rm 3000 PKG Condition

70083230000067544074