Progress report summarizing the reef fish sampling, PCB - Earthjustice

Recommendations

Info

egional recreational offshore fishing destination, a historically significant regional, national and international diving destination and provide hard bottom reef community habitat enhancement in an area off northwest Florida where only about 3% of the continental shelf seafloor is well developed natural hard bottom structure (Thompson et al., 1999). Additionally there were expectations that the project would provide an economic boost to Pensacola and adjacent coastal communities. The Navy proposed to leave on board the ex-Oriskany some regulated solid PCB containing material at concentrations ≥ 50 ppm in difficult to access passageways and compartments on deck levels below the carrier’s hanger deck at water depths from 160-212 feet and deeper where the hull was expected to penetrate and settle below the seabed. This triggered a requirement for a risk-based PCB bulk product waste disposal approval from the EPA. The EPA/MARAD vessel cleaning BMPs state, “Where there is reason to suspect manufactured products containing solid PCBs greater than or equal to 50 ppm, remove the equipment or component from the vessel or provide proof that the equipment or component is free of PCBs unless a bulk product waste disposal approval has been obtained under Title 40 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) §761.62(c)” (USEPA and MARAD, 2006). As a result of this requirement, the Navy requested a risk-based PCB bulk product disposal authorization from EPA Region 4 (Atlanta, Georgia). I(C) (3) Navy Submittal of PCB Bulk Product Disposal Application to EPA On April 28, 2004 the U.S. Department of the Navy submitted an application to the EPA Region 4 Regional Administrator requesting to dispose of PCB bulk product waste remaining on board the ex-Oriskany at the time of reefing in accordance with the requirements of Title 40 CFR §761.62(c) (Glen Clark, NAVSEA PMS 333, Oriskany Project Manager, personal communication). The Navy’s application had to demonstrate that based on technical, environmental, or waste-specific characteristics or considerations, the proposed storage or disposal methods or locations would not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. The EPA subsequently requested other information that it believed necessary to evaluate the Navy’s application. I(C) (4) Navy Development of PCB Risk Assessment Models and Documents for EPA Review The Navy spent several years developing a series of documents justifying their request to sink the ex-Oriskany with some anticipated PCB bulk product left on board. The document development process with accompanying laboratory and in situ studies and model development began prior to and continued in tandem with the environmental remediation work on the ship. The documents developed for 16 | P age
EPA review included: 1) a human health risk assessment (SPARWAR Systems Center San Diego. 2006a); 2) an ecological risk-based assessment (Johnston et al. 2006); 3) a Prospective Risk Assessment Model (PRAM) that modeled the steady state fate and transport of PCBs through the food chain (SPARWAR Systems Center San Diego. 2006b); 4) a Time Dynamic Model (TDM) that modeled the immediate short term release (over the first two years) of PCBs expected to be released from the Oriskany (SPARWAR Systems Center San Diego. 2006c); 5) a leach rate study based upon laboratory observations of PCBs leaching into sea water from ship related PCB containing materials (SPARWAR Systems Center San Diego. 2006d) and 6) a document providing estimates of PCB quantities and mean concentrations in various materials on board the ex-Oriskany before and after environmental remediation (Pape 2004). The Navy’s risk assessments analyzed potential risks to human and ecological receptors based on predicted PCB concentrations in the water and in close proximity to the Oriskany Reef once created. Based on the models, studies and documents developed, the Navy concluded that PCBs released from the proposed Oriskany Reef would not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment. I(C) (5) EPA Evaluation, Review and Subsequent Approval of Navy’s PCB Risk Based Disposal Application and Supporting Documents The EPA reviewed the Navy application and its accompanying supporting documents to dispose of solid PCBs associated with the sinking of the ex-Oriskany. Over the next 21 months the EPA reviewed, critiqued, and requested additional information on the supporting documents provided by the Navy, including the results of Navy computer model findings (both the Time Dynamic Model and the Prospective Risk Assessment Model). The output from these models indicated there was no unreasonable risk to human health and the environment if the Navy left PCB containing materials in the quantities estimated on board the ship when reefed. The EPA reviewed the Navy’s risk assessment documents not only internally but with the assistance of an external independent scientific advisory board (SAB) (Morgan and Rose 2005). The Navy in turn responded to the SAB’s suggestions and questions. EPA’s concluded that based upon the pre-sink modeling prediction data provided by the Navy, no unreasonable risk to human health or the environment would occur with the reefing of the ex-Oriskany. The EPA made available a draft risk-based PCB bulk waste disposal approval document for review on the EPA Region 4 home page website. Announcement of availability of a draft for review was advertised December 19, 2005 in the Pensacola News Journal. On January 10, 2006, EPA also held a public meeting in Pensacola to provide Pensacola area citizens another venue 17 | P age
Page 1 and 2: Progress report summarizing the ree
Page 3 and 4: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In compliance wit
Page 5 and 6: LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page No. 1.
Page 7 and 8: I (A) (1) EPA Oriskany Reef PCB Tie
Page 9 and 10: validate the Navy developed PCB fat
Page 11 and 12: that “the numbering standard for
Page 13 and 14: ship material leachate experiments
Page 15: solid PCB containing materials woul
Page 19 and 20: I(C)(6) PCB Containing Materials On
Page 21 and 22: I(C) (8) Oriskany Reef Created In a
Page 23 and 24: fishes for the Monitoring Work Plan
Page 25 and 26: I (D) (2) Fishing Vessel Sampling P
Page 27 and 28: long from the top to the mouth of t
Page 29 and 30: During sample round #2 all four che
Page 31 and 32: The rod and reel manpower sampling
Page 33 and 34: was intentionally scheduled after t
Page 35 and 36: weren’t running after each fish w
Page 37 and 38: actually shipped to GERG on Februar
Page 39 and 40: samples during Sampling Rounds 1-8
Page 41 and 42: harvesting at least 15 legal size r
Page 43 and 44: attraction as expressed by an incre
Page 45 and 46: Of these 10 reef assessment dives,
Page 47 and 48: assessments which were limited to t
Page 49 and 50: not considered target species for a
Page 51 and 52: have had any PAH levels approaching
Page 53 and 54: Oriskany, and one recapture at a
Page 55 and 56: ed snapper season commencement. The
Page 57 and 58: Table 8a. List of reef fish species
Page 59 and 60: Oriskany Reef during Sampling Round
Page 61 and 62: Species Composition of Oriskany Sam
Page 63 and 64: The GERG lab reported their receipt
Page 65 and 66: pectoral fins of the blackfin snapp
Page 67 and 68:
Trophic level or position Trophic p
Page 69 and 70:
that means after five years only 3%
Page 71 and 72:
II (D) (1) (c) Red Snapper Discussi
Page 73 and 74:
1,000,000 ΣPCB (pg/g) a. Sample Da
Page 75 and 76:
The PCB levels measured from red sn
Page 77 and 78:
fins relatively short, not reaching
Page 79 and 80:
Results of PCB analysis by sample d
Page 81 and 82:
ody, these spots giving a yellow-st
Page 83 and 84:
II (D) (3) (c) Red Porgy Discussion
Page 85 and 86:
cheeks that are speckled with brigh
Page 87 and 88:
II (D) (4) (c) Whitebone Porgy Disc
Page 89 and 90:
(common) name. The first spine is l
Page 91 and 92:
II (D) (5) (c) Gray Triggerfish Dis
Page 93 and 94:
The Scamp inhabits continental shel
Page 95 and 96:
Results of PCB analysis by sample d
Page 97 and 98:
species was not among the first 30
Page 99 and 100:
elieved to be unlikely since most o
Page 101 and 102:
trip less than 15% of the time due
Page 103 and 104:
II F (6) (b) Current Florida Marine
Page 105 and 106:
assessment, technological feasibili
Page 107 and 108:
III Oriskany Reef Monitoring Projec
Page 109 and 110:
Fishbase.org (Internet site). 2011.
Page 111 and 112:
Ingram, G.W., Jr. and W.F. Patterso
Page 113 and 114:
Patterson, W. F., J. H. Cowan Jr, e
Page 115 and 116:
Thompson, M.J., W.W. Schroeder, and
Page 117 and 118:
Table 2. FWC Fish Census data taken
Page 119 and 120:
Table 4. Fish census data taken by
Page 121 and 122:
frogfish Antennarius sp.
Page 123 and 124:
eef butterflyfish Chaetodon sedenta
Page 125 and 126:
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites auro
Page 127 and 128:
OR-RS-042 Red Snapper 4/12/2007 HnL
Page 129 and 130:
OR-RS-155 Red Snapper 11/18/2009 Hn
Page 131 and 132:
Table 14. Tissue sample characteris
Page 133 and 134:
Table 15. Percent composition of to
Page 135 and 136:
Table 16b. Percent composition of t
show all

Progress report summarizing the reef fish sampling, PCB - Earthjustice

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?