Office of National Marine Sanctuaries Office of Response and Restoration Screening Level Risk Assessment Package China Arrow March 2013 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of National Marine Sanctuaries Daniel J. Basta, Director Lisa Symons John Wagner Office of Response and Restoration Dave Westerholm, Director Debbie Payton Doug Helton Photo: U.S. Coast Guard Identification Photograph of China Arrow Courtesy of National Archives, Washington, DC Table of Contents Project Background .......................................................................................................................................ii Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................1 Section 1: Vessel Background Information: Remediation of Underwater Legacy Environmental Threats (RULET) .....................................................................................................2 Vessel Particulars .........................................................................................................................................2 Casualty Information .....................................................................................................................................3 Wreck Location .............................................................................................................................................4 Casualty Narrative ........................................................................................................................................4 General Notes ..............................................................................................................................................5 Wreck Condition/Salvage History ................................................................................................................5 Archaeological Assessment .........................................................................................................................5 Assessment ..................................................................................................................................................5 Background Information References ............................................................................................................6 Vessel Risk Factors ......................................................................................................................................7 Section 2: Environmental Impact Modeling ...............................................................................................14 Release Scenarios Used in the Modeling ...................................................................................................14 Oil Type for Release ...................................................................................................................................16 Oil Thickness Thresholds ............................................................................................................................16 Potential Impacts to the Water Column .......................................................................................................17 Potential Water Surface Slick ......................................................................................................................18 Potential Shoreline Impacts.........................................................................................................................20 Section 3: Ecological Resources At Risk ..................................................................................................21 Ecological Risk Factors ...............................................................................................................................23 Section 4: Socio-Economic Resources At Risk ........................................................................................29 Socio-Economic Risk Factors .....................................................................................................................33 Section 5: Overall Risk Assessment and Recommendations for Assessment, Monitoring, or Remediation ..........................................................................................................39 i Project Background The past century of commerce and warfare has left a legacy of thousands of sunken vessels along the U.S. coast. Many of these wrecks pose environmental threats because of the hazardous nature of their cargoes, presence of munitions, or bunker fuel oils left onboard. As these wrecks corrode and decay, they may release oil or hazardous materials. Although a few vessels, such as USS Arizona in Hawaii, are well- publicized environmental threats, most wrecks, unless they pose an immediate pollution threat or impede navigation, are left alone and are largely forgotten until they begin to leak. In order to narrow down the potential sites for inclusion into regional and area contingency plans, in 2010, Congress appropriated $1 million to identify the most ecologically and economically significant potentially polluting wrecks in U.S. waters. This project supports the U.S. Coast Guard and the Regional Response Teams as well as NOAA in prioritizing threats to coastal resources while at the same time assessing the historical and cultural significance of these nonrenewable cultural resources. The potential polluting shipwrecks were identified through searching a broad variety of historical sources. NOAA then worked with Research Planning, Inc., RPS ASA, and Environmental Research Consulting to conduct the modeling forecasts, and the ecological and environmental resources at risk assessments. Initial evaluations of shipwrecks located within American waters found that approximately 600-1,000 wrecks could pose a substantial pollution threat based on their age, type and size. This includes vessels sunk after 1891 (when vessels began being converted to use oil as fuel), vessels built of steel or other durable material (wooden vessels have likely deteriorated), cargo vessels over 1,000 gross tons (smaller vessels would have limited cargo or bunker capacity), and any tank vessel. Additional ongoing research has revealed that 87 wrecks pose a potential pollution threat due to the violent nature in which some ships sank and the structural reduction and demolition of those that were navigational hazards. To further screen and prioritize these vessels, risk factors and scores have been applied to elements such as the amount of oil that could be on board and the potential ecological or environmental impact. ii Executive Summary: China Arrow The tanker China Arrow, torpedoed and sunk during World War II off the coast of Virginia in 1942, was identified as a potential pollution threat, thus a screening-level risk assessment was conducted. The different sections of this document summarize what is known about the China Arrow, the results of environmental impact modeling composed of different release scenarios, the ecological and socio- economic resources that would be at risk in the event of releases, the screening-level risk scoring results and overall risk assessment, and recommendations for assessment, monitoring, or Vessel Risk Factors Risk Score remediation. A1: Oil Volume (total bbl) A2: Oil Type Based on this screening-level assessment, each B: Wreck Clearance vessel was assigned a summary score calculated Pollution Potential C1: Burning of the Ship Med using the seven risk criteria described in this Factors C2: Oil on Water report. For the Worst Case Discharge, China D1: Nature of Casualty Arrow scores High with 18 points; for the Most D2: Structural Breakup Probable Discharge (10% of the Worse Case Archaeological Archaeological Assessment Not Scored Assessment volume), China Arrow scores Low with 10 points. Wreck Orientation Given these scores, NOAA would typically Depth recommend that this site be considered for an Confirmation of Site Condition assessment to better determine structural integrity Operational Other Hazardous Materials Not Scored and how much fuel still remains aboard this vessel. Factors Munitions Onboard However, given that the location of this vessel is Gravesite (Civilian/Military) unknown and the oil type is uncertain, NOAA Historical Protection Eligibility recommends that surveys of opportunity with state, WCD MP (10%) federal or academic entities be used to attempt to 3A: Water Column Resources High Low locate this vessel and that general notations are Ecological 3B: Water Surface Resources High Med Resources made in the Area Contingency Plans so that if a 3C: Shore Resources Med Low mystery spill is reported in the general area, this 4A: Water Column Resources High Low Socio- vessel could be investigated as a source. Outreach Economic 4B: Water Surface Resources High Med efforts with commercial fishermen who frequent Resources 4C: Shore Resources Med Low the area would be helpful to gain awareness of Summary Risk Scores (light fuel oil) 18 10 localized spills in the general area where the vessel The determination of each risk factor is explained in the document. is believed lost. This summary table is found on page 40. 1 Section 1: Vessel Background Information: Remediation of Underwater Legacy Environmental Threats (RULET) SECTION 1: VESSEL BACKGROUND INFORMATION: REMEDIATION OF UNDERWATER LEGACY ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS (RULET) Vessel Particulars Official Name: China Arrow Official Number: 220680 Vessel Type: Tanker Vessel Class: Unknown Former Names: N/A Year Built: 1920 Builder: Bethlehem Steel Company, Quincy, MA Builder’s Hull Number: 1385 Flag: American Owner at Loss: Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. Inc. Controlled by: Unknown Chartered to: Unknown Operated by: Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. Inc. Homeport: New York, NY Length: 468 feet Beam: 62 feet Depth: 32 feet Gross Tonnage: 8,403 Net Tonnage: 5,228 Hull Material: Steel Hull Fastenings: Riveted Powered by: Oil-fired steam Bunker Type: Fuel oil Bunker Capacity (bbl): 10,870 Average Bunker Consumption (bbl) per 24 hours: Unknown Liquid Cargo Capacity (bbl): 88,800 Dry Cargo Capacity: Unknown Tank or Hold Description: Vessel had 10 cargo tanks divided port and starboard by an oil-tight longitudinal bulkhead 2 Section 1: Vessel Background Information: Remediation of Underwater Legacy Environmental Threats (RULET) Casualty Information Port Departed: Beaumont, TX Destination Port: New York Date Departed: Unknown Date Lost: February 5, 1942 Number of Days Sailing: Unknown Cause of Sinking: Act of War (Torpedoes and Shellfire) Latitude (DD): 37.7333 Longitude (DD): -73.3 Nautical Miles to Shore: 90 Nautical Miles to NMS: 187 Nautical Miles to MPA: 0 Nautical Miles to Fisheries: Unknown Approximate Water Depth (Ft): 6,500 Bottom Type: Sand Is There a Wreck at This Location? Unknown, the wreck has never been located Wreck Orientation: Unknown Vessel Armament: None Cargo Carried when Lost: 81,773 bbl of fuel oil Cargo Oil Carried (bbl): 81,773 Cargo Oil Type: Fuel oil Probable Fuel Oil Remaining (bbl): ≤ 10,870 Fuel Type: Heavy fuel oil (Bunker C) Total Oil Carried (bbl): ≤ 92,643 Dangerous Cargo or Munitions: No Munitions Carried: None Demolished after Sinking: No Salvaged: No Cargo Lost: Yes Reportedly Leaking: No Historically Significant: Yes Gravesite: No Salvage Owner: Not known if any 3 Section 1: Vessel Background Information: Remediation of Underwater Legacy Environmental Threats (RULET) Wreck Location Chart Number: 13003 Casualty Narrative "At 18.08 hours on 5 Feb, 1942, the unescorted and unarmed China Arrow (Master Paul Hoffman Browne) was hit by two torpedoes from U-103, while running on a zigzag course and blacked out off Winter Quarter Shoals. The first struck the starboard side between the #8 and #9 tanks, the other between tanks #9 and #10. The explosion blew fuel oil 125 feet into the air and over the length of the vessel. Fire immediately broke out in these tanks. The live steam firefighting equipment smothered the blaze in tanks #9 and #10 but could not put out the fire in the #8 tank. The nine officers and 28 crewmen on board abandoned ship in three lifeboats 25 minutes after the hits. The U-boat surfaced and fired 15 to 20 shells into the waterline of the burning tanker, which sank by the stern at 19.30 hours. The men in the lifeboats were spotted by a U.S. Navy aircraft 57 hours after the attack. A Catalina flying boat of the U.S. Coast Guard landed near the boats and the men were later picked up by the U.S. Coast Guard cutter USS Nike (WPC 112), which took them to the U.S. Coast Guard Station in Lewes, Delaware." -http://www.uboat.net:8080/allies/merchants/ships/1315.html 4 Section 1: Vessel Background Information: Remediation of Underwater Legacy Environmental Threats (RULET) General Notes AWOIS Data: NM6/42--WRECK REPORTED AT LAT.37-59-30N, LONG.75-11-30W. DESCRIPTION: NO.392; TANKER, 8404 GT, SUNK 2/5/42 BY SUBMARINE; POSITION ACCURACY WITHIN 1 MILE; WD CLEARED TO 39 FT POSSIBLY ON 8/8/49. ALSO CONTAINED IN 5TH ND WRECK LIST, 8/1/42; SEE OTHER LISTING. 27 NO.254; 8403 GT, SUNK 2/5/42. SURVEY REQUIREMENTS NOT DETERMINED TKR; 8403 GT. SANK 2/5/42 IN 50 FT, 1 MILE WNW OF BUOY 5. TKR, 8403 TONS; TORPEDOED 2/5/42; 42 FT OVER WRECK; 81,773 BARRELS OF FUEL OIL ABOARD. Wreck Condition/Salvage History Unknown; the wreck has never been discovered. Archaeological Assessment The archaeological assessment provides additional primary source based documentation about the sinking of vessels. It also provides condition-based archaeological assessment of the wrecks when possible. It does not provide a risk-based score or definitively assess the pollution risk or lack thereof from these vessels, but includes additional information that could not be condensed into database form. Where the current condition of a shipwreck is not known, data from other archaeological studies of similar types of shipwrecks provide the means for brief explanations of what the shipwreck might look like and specifically, whether it is thought there is sufficient structural integrity to retain oil. This is more subjective than the Pollution Potential Tree and computer-generated resource at risk models, and as such provides an additional viewpoint to examine risk assessments and assess the threat posed by these shipwrecks. It also addresses questions of historical significance and the relevant historic preservation laws and regulations that will govern on-site assessments. In some cases where little additional historic information has been uncovered about the loss of a vessel, archaeological assessments cannot be made with any degree of certainty and were not prepared. For vessels with full archaeological assessments, NOAA archaeologists and contracted archivists have taken photographs of primary source documents from the National Archives that can be made available for future research or on-site activities. Assessment NOAA archaeologists have located little additional historic documentation on the sinking of the tanker China Arrow and no site reports exist that would allow NOAA archaeologists to provide much additional archaeological assessment about the shipwreck on top of the casualty narrative included in this packet. We do know from archival research that the ship was struck by two torpedoes on the starboard side just forward of the engine room bulkhead (Fig. 1-1). The torpedoes set tanks 8, 9, and 10 on fire, but the 5 Section 1: Vessel Background Information: Remediation of Underwater Legacy Environmental Threats (RULET) onboard firefighting equipment put out the fires in tanks 9 and 10. As tank number 8 continued to burn, the crew began to abandon ship. Figure 1-1: U.S. Coast Guard diagram of the location of torpedo impacts on China Arrow (Image courtesy of National Archives, Washington, DC) Soon after the crew abandoned the tanker, the submarine came to the surface and began to shell the tanker. The crew approximated that 15 shells struck the ship causing extensive damage all over the vessel. Unfortunately, there is a large degree of inaccuracy in the sinking location of the tanker. The summary of survivor statements compiled by the U.S. Navy simply states that the ship was off Winter Quarter Shoals and no exact position was given. The coordinates recorded by the German submarine captain place the location of the attack approximately 90 miles from shore in water deeper than 6,000 feet. Based on the large degree of inaccuracy between these reported sinking locations, it is unlikely that the shipwreck will be intentionally located. Ongoing research also strongly suggests that vessels in great depths of water are generally found in an upright orientation. This orientation has often lead to loss of oil from vents and piping long before loss of structural integrity of hull plates from corrosion or other physical impacts. As it is believed that this vessel is in water greater than 6,000 feet, it is likely to have settled upright and may no longer contain oil. The only way to conclusively determine the condition of the shipwreck, however, will be to examine the site if it is discovered. Should the vessel be located in a survey of opportunity or due to a mystery spill attributed to this vessel, it should be noted that this vessel is of historic significance and will require appropriate actions be taken under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and possibly the Sunken Military Craft Act (SMCA) prior to any actions that could impact the integrity of the vessel. This vessel may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Background Information References Vessel Image Sources: National Archives, Washington, DC. Construction Diagrams or Plans in RULET Database? No Text References: -http://www.uboat.net/allies/merchants/1315.html 6