#- ag

A REPORT
IEC)

THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES -
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

FROM
A SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE

ON EFFECTS OF ATOMIC RADIATION
ON OCEANOGRAPHY AND FISHERIES

CONCERNING

THE FEASIBILITY OF THE DISPOSAL OF LOW LEVEL

OF THE ATLANTIC AND GULF COASTS

OF THE UNITED STATES

a7 pyes yeemer sO AIC AP ree OVSTITUMOS
MOOTS HOLE UL mena

MAY 1958

| Oezeeoo TOEO OU

WMA

1OHM/18lN

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

The working group that prepared this report was composed of

the following members:

Mr, Dean F, Bumpus

Woods Hole Oceanographic Insti-
tution

Woods Hole, Massachusetts

Dr, James H, Carpenter
Chesapeake Bay Institute
The Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore 18, Maryland

Dr, Dayton E, Carritt
Committee Chairman
Department of Oceanography
The Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore 18, Maryland

Dr. Walter A, Chipman
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Beaufort, North Carolina

Dr, John H, Harley

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
70 Columbus Avenue

New York 23, New York

Dr, Bruce C, Heezen

Lamont Geological Observatory
Torrey Cliffs

Palisades, New York

Dr, Bostwick H, Ketchum

Woods Hole Oceanographic Insti-
tution

Woods Hole, Massachusetts

Dr. R, O, Reid

Department of Oceanography and
Meteorology

A, and M, College of Texas

College Station, Texas

Consultants: Mr, Howard Eckles
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries
Department of the Interior
Washington 25, D, C,

Mr, Arnold Joseph

U.S, Atomic Energy Commission
Reactor Development Branch
Washington 25, D, C,

= a
Te Wan
Wee
1
ie Sah

ee

a4
if

iy

Cae at Mewens ih ot Od aby

4 mh at hy

coy ie f

Se ean WE et eel
side Sm NSN
age) le at

Ate ER

ja ea) t
\ ‘
, um f Pe
PDL iO tye Mike a licnt dy OU
et es ite LR 10%
y | -
y 1 ih A f we th oe
i
i, {
‘t i) 3 P
‘hk tel en! 1 Pen wd
eh i rT ‘ | | 7 N ’ ;
he ou RE Aa mates, Mie eA Ta oe hh ea ea Mn ym,
Nietae Pee Ls
yt i i!
‘f iy) ee | hoa pi) }
eG : :
i : i j j > ’
beh RT BDF ; mF)
coal bi one i 4 feos ; Be j
¥ y : en ht
— wt } nh i ied v\
3 y j
ee Fee et ci a '
‘ LS 7 : ‘ Ni
i ? th
uy ‘ j ih i
(tei } f ’
re 1 | }
i x
* ‘
Lh
oo at ! v4
' ‘
hal
|
; : ly Sib ar:
\ i \ t ee
;
i te i

F shy a

iat

Mh DOES
Lay

ae ia

dul

I, CHAIRMAN'S PREFACE

The deliberations of this committee were undertaken at a time
when active debate was going on concerning the extent of the hazard to
man being created by the introduction of radioactive materials into
man's environment, Both sides of this debate have been pressed by
people in all sections of American society: scientists, politicians, and
laymen, Although this debate has centered primarily around the effects
of activity produced during bomb testing, since this is now the main
source of radioactive wastes, the results are much more pertinent to
the situation that will exist when nuclear power production reaches its
expected levels, At that time the quantity of activity in existence will
be many thousands of times greater than that which now must be con-
sidered, It has been estimated, for example, that the equilibrium
quantity of activity in about the year 2000 will be approximately
30 million megacuries, To be sure, most of this will be contained in
such a way, and in such locations, that its hazard will be negligible,
just as the "high level wastes" from present pile operations are now
treated, Nevertheless, it is inevitable that as the rate of production of
radioactive materials increases, so the quantity of ''low level wastes"
will increase, These large volume, low activity wastes result from the

processing of spent reactor fuels and from an increased production and

use of radioisotopes by industry, hospitals, and research institutions.

fepasencses ou ie ” (ino 7

Sib iilicy ate og hae neta oT ana a pest hia

A HAS
vi nal

+e y ras a ‘Skies

oe cea? od sini be wore

rire with di On, a sii fA’ 9 nity, ‘cali ROME ELA

AKC a ee ee a wi ORT, ve vy:

re i

Wi tims

> as

; aA +N ney i ig? wy ae badd se Hse alan sil

Be a
Te wWhianeain oe veel hart +k eee
¢ ii 2 1 ¥ a

Ue lo! tele Serger _ uel?) Sea TO:
4 in 7 in Vo, a eter tet iy cy ay

oi 0

pe dcortap ee Aahe Mfi fe dnae

snd

en ae. oy MEN 3 ‘ he ae he ce

f chy es 50) rtd io hap My A * es ee,
X' iat

Be) a a

RR wR oa

2.

A significant feature of the present debate is centered around the
issues of "pathological effects" and ''genetic effects" of radiation, Rel-
atively speaking, the levels of radiation that will produce defined patho-
logical effects are rather well established, Our experience with X rays,
early radium work, and more recently with the entire spectrum of
fission product problems provides the information for an assessment of
these levels, It is these considerations that form the basis for the
recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Pro-
tection, and the establishment of maximum permissible concentrations
for various radioisotopes in air and drinking water, and the maximum
permissible amounts in the human body,

The ''genetic effects'' problem, however, is not so sharply
defined, Our experience has been gained over much too short a time
to be able to assess what effects rather small increases in radiation
levels in man's environment will produce in the next several genera-=
tions, The Committee on Genetic Effects of the National Academy of
Sciences - National Research Council (1) summarized the situation (in
part) as follows:

"The basic fact is - and no competent persons doubt this =

that radiations produce mutations and that mutations are

in general harmful, It is difficult, at the present state of

knowledge of genetics, to estimate just how much of what

kind of harm will appear in each future generation after

mutant genes are induced by radiations, Different
geneticists prefer differing ways of describing this

ite whe ing } te is ae aco x su! +

br

, mt maven Ue,

oi - . , Pe anes OL hey
ai Kew wotew ue ‘esti ar Dee Aa aes. Fe oa a it nde
= a min H F

Ih

i 4h ica De fa Hi Bye eel: PR
a ” eT D t ay

wide 60) dawn tay benene need need none s rte

A)

* flees: Al Weekes! Ligne Teites a? wath faa Ws

iw ‘gira 1 ahs

+e acy dis

ay pa i 7 le Aue si wt
Co) Sie? Sareryn fs of NER ED ERO ease Ma wy

nearer ieFaverhe Sia 4 ae amp cc i oer bate r
ji oy ih ‘ mitsanwiit tact vee He MOQNY stop an
at Vents) yt Ta
ee crete fe ett, aoe bo) 54 i
eee oar se: ee Cen e saa nad to bane
cig gilts tafe Poa nt itr a ae
a aA by, Same tyra ad atti 4a

Le We atie Ahea ery

situation: But they all come out with the unanimous
conclusion that the potential danger is great,

"This report recommends that the general public of
the United States be protected, by whatever controls
may prove necessary, from receiving a total repro-
ductive lifetime dose (conception to age 30) of more
than 10 roentgens of man-made radiation to the
reproductive cells, Of this reasonable (not harm-
less, mind you, but reasonable) quota of 10 roent-
gens over and beyond the inevitable background of
radiation from natural causes, we are now using on
the average some 3 or 4 roentgens for medical

X rays, This is roughly the same as the unavoidable
dose received from background radiation,"'

Furthermore, it is significant that suggested changes for present
MPC values would make them smaller, For example, Looney (2)
shows that the present MPC for radium, from which the MPC for other
radioisotopes is calculated (in part), may be significantly too high, He
states in summary:

"Tt cannot be concluded from the present information
on the effects of radium in man that the present MPC
of 0,1 microgram of radium is permissible, The
effects of radium deposited in man in concentrations
at or near the present MPC for a period greater than
40 years is not known, Extrapolation of the present
results to cover a normal life-time indicates that
‘appreciable bodily injury' may occur at or below the
present MPC, It would seem advisable to consider
lowering of the present MPC of radium until informa-
tion becomes available on the effects of radium in
man over a normal lifetime,"!

From the point of view of a committee that must make recom-

mendations concerning the release of radioactive substances to the

“epee is (0b Mi a chek
exit a mottnibex abso nea
Ces att 10
‘Tiago oF 36 ry qeigs i
‘to hamrorpao sd. sidsiivant a) ait Fi iene
- “a8 ai iN wor are ‘owe adeUs> bie AO, in
Pt phaclenes, peat dithdcaas ‘ shal cial a

ce

: 6) ene panes, <0 %, mastashe ‘eat wo ianig bhyew a

ne

"Sh cnt die pti gal oy bren) (Fu omy AE) busulsicokamts

ve oe a oth : ; nt an r

woitent tebe Stine S39 ahd: Rie # habuhone > at:
Iperns Seog set} aap | Aett’ Ov ave Miata
ye 7 pul voiding hires oy 8 f Saab ian he. sagigetaeal 2
girohiatias mena ak stool hadaaeee omptbag te
‘piped! rodserg boixog 4 THA ALM chao ‘ond eu a6
taseuiy Sh! to. soltaloqeyiad, cate dea Ag ith hc caay
‘ | edt aeretaberh Beaitealht ine zon 6-2 aVO9 ‘ete
|, a woled so bes taaoio: yet "yt: are 3 of 6. ; thee
Pi gobticins ri ohdew lhe oxanie hinow 31
Oe earch fitay oantbat to ated Jesu aig oa} ri) roa
ip aa ee: snitha 3 iu pioelie edt og, pideltavs dortint 5d ROR
‘kee santo kis Larees Ont 8, PMO A

mesyie aS, nen, teat er ate winbe \o baton er) smtiy

ids oe peaaeti me tea wv adage iG seni) 1 ould yorker eyed Brit

]
i
1

ae

human environment, these considerations are extremely troublesome,
On the one hand, the recommendations must be based upon an evalua-
tion of how rates of release of activity can combine with the containment
and dispersal properties of the environment to produce a return of
activity to man at levels that will not be hazardous, a procedure that
must have as its base line a definition of hazard, On the other hand,

it is plain that there is not unanimous agreement as to where this base
line should be placed,

We realize that at our present state of development this situation
is probably inevitable. However, the realization is not a substitute for
the missing information,

Three courses of action appear to be open tous, We might
attempt to evaluate the evidence regarding the pathological and genetic
effects of radiation, and so establish a firm base line, However, hav-
ing no competence in these fields we feel unqualified to do this, We
might refuse to make recommendations, stating that it is impossible to
do so until better agreement as to what constitutes a hazard can be
reached by those who have competence in such matters, This course
we believe to be both unnecessary and dangerous, It would be danger-
ous because low-level radioactive wastes are now being introduced into
shallow, coastal waters, and our refusal to make recommendations

concerning permissible quantities and suitable locations certainly

i DE ar Ala)

aetna eed re

at :

7 aya 7 BE sins aaiiaban cnthdaaes! seo. 2 tes Yo iil

PS, le water £ soubor” ms: nepinnor tvs pit to att

a
U
+,

shan zedio et re Leiesad’ 16 Hotiaitos 6 onl saad ait

. eead aid? avsdw 02 ee japctio a tgs nnn tow si orpl? dat

-, . eB n ‘ rentey ad By

er

eoitaniea sid? tasényjoleveh to stale daca IO 3H ted shila |
gn) Ssostadva € ton 8: nolianilaes oil diseeitatt side livent sh
joka otek atk '

Sdy teri aW aw 01 nbqo od oO sesqqe ites 1G HS% 11de eg
aiseney bas Ipaiypoiddiag act ‘iidiliegtas saaebiye ast oseileva | m4
-yed .y6vewoH sail snag meet e detidares 06 bas coitsihat we

i SW .sidt ob 0) balMigieil ion? ew nbiaw ‘Phedts ot sonoeqent
ai sidinaaqril et Ti ied! Gaiaie Rito na berperigyOoe7 codecs: of aaah

od as brasad a vsivieno> terdw as ee StemreSsius <oiied th ath
ensues ell} siete: dova i: sone) sgt a9 syed ollw seodt ya Bam
«segnab od bluow df .syossgash bon yimbeboue no died od of ave

Pl ky pa

odni bentibariat gaied won sts see 4 evlionoiber | ovagintol ¢

i sisolraborapmnboos dees oF Sawdon ud bas tote tapanee, aN
oa 7 "

would not stop the practice, It is unnecessary because there is an
effective course of action open to us, which is to make as careful an
assessment of the situation as possible, noting in detail the areas in
which more information is needed, We can then recommend proced-
ures that correspond to the conservative, or safe, side of the large
band of uncertainty that must surround the predicted behavior of the
system we are considering, We may rely upon the results of the
recommended studies to furnish the basis for revision of our conclu-

sions,

aateats orl?

II. SUMMARY

The feasibility of establishing areas in the Atlantic and Gulf
coastal waters of the United States into which packaged low level radio-=
active wastes may be disposed has been studied in an attempt to learn
at what rate of disposal the practice will create a hazard to the marine
environment and to man in his uses of the marine environment and
marine resources,

These studies are a continuation of the work of the National
Academy of Sciences = National Research Council Committees on the
Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation, In particular they supply a
part of the information considered by the Committee on Effects of
Atomic Radiation on Oceanography and Fisheries to be necessary
before the disposal of radioactive wastes into onshore waters should be
authorized,

Two mechanisms have been considered which appear to be the
most likely avenues by which radioactivity deposited in onshore waters
could become a hazard to man or to the marine environment. They
are: (1) diffusion from containers, followed by transport to the immed-
iate shoreline, thereby creating a potential hazard primarily to man's
recreational uses of the areas; and (2) diffusion from containers, fol-

lowed by inclusion in the various trophic levels of the marine biota,

and final return to man via the commercially important marine fish and

| are
We
wait wate oth rs baneact é itene. the: ae

" fanotialt vi Sty aio aie Li ites stoeos * ns ibys
7 i. fouls
7) atrial en) outta
os 8 wire oO eal d oe yr” wore ares avhod

at hs " Pe i) fr

4 : : 7 Reo j
te wel ating 4 at bore ry oiaarsige

io an migsi ioteutti is! baa thee i mult be ae!

i
vy

wd a ating hed to rer al: susie’?

toss ke re aan

‘

7.

shellfish, thereby creating a potential hazard to man in his food supply.

Approximately twenty locations along the Atlantic and Gulf
coasts of the United States are suggested as possible disposal areas,
On the basis of information presently available it has been concluded
that any one of these locations could have received the radioactive iso-
topes (measured at the time of shipment, omitting sealed sources)
shipped to licenced non-governmental activities in the area east of the
Mississippi River, plus the states of Texas and Louisiana, during the
period January 1956 to September 1957, under the condition that the
rate of disposal with immediate release to the water was equal to the
rate of shipment from Oak Ridge, This conclusion appears to be valid
for rates of production that have been estimated for the next five years,

Hazard level is based upon the recommendations of the National
Committee on Radiation Protection (4).

Maximum permissible concentrations of various isotopes in sea
water have been calculated, These are the concentrations that will
supply to man, by the ingestion of marine fish or shellfish, the same
quantity of activity that he would receive by drinking water having
presently accepted MPC quantities. The maximum permissible sea
water concentrations (PSC) also provide a measure of the extent to
which any quantity of a given radioisotope must be diluted with sea

water in order that it be a non-hazardous habitat for fish or shellfish

as wien

Ay

that are to be food for man,

That no shore line hazard will be created by the stated quantities
of activity in the suggested locations was concluded after estimating the
maximum concentration of activity that could result at various dis-
tances from the disposal site as a result of mixing and dilution of the
waste by turbulent diffusion processes and transport by ocean currents,

The conclusion that fish will not become contaminated to hazard-=-
ous levels is based upon an estimate of the quantity of activity that
would be received by man, assuming that fish is his sole source of
protein for about thirty years, and that the fish remain for at least one
month within one kilometer (about 5/8 mile) of the center of the dis-
posal area, and always on the downstream side, Even under these
unlikely conditions, the total quantity of radioactivity that would be
ingested by man is below hazardous levels, for present levels of pro-
duction of low level wastes,

The calculations of the extent of mixing and dilution due to
turbulent diffusion provide conservative estimates of the concentration
that would be observed in the natural system, That is, the calculated
concentrations are higher than the actual ones.

Completely omitted from these considerations is the process of
sorption of the wastes on naturally occurring sediment components in

suspension and on the ocean floor, It was found impossible to make a

i Ke ee - ae PT heen pers by ' Wiad)

4 tie He tks
2 eR COSUTNIM gm:
jbl putida 2 ine

hig etl Pails a!

cal) MeN nA
ane

aia A ‘a bi i J +

De

reliable estimate of the extent to which this would occur, Neglecting
this factor provides an additional factor of safety in the estimates of
maximum concentration that would be realized in nature, as the pro-
cess is known to be effective in removing many dissolved and sus-=
pended substances from solution,

It should be noted that evaluation of the hazard level using only
those factors that can be dealt with in a quantitative or semi-quantita-
tive manner leads to the conclusion that present production rates of the
radioactive substances that will get into civilian disposal routes are
approaching rates that might create a hazard, If production levels
were to be increased by three, and possibly only two, orders of magni-=
tude, it is conceivable that the resulting wastes might create a hazard
if disposed into some of the suggested locations,

Under conditions of a constant rate of disposal of packaged
wastes, the build-up of activity in the water and in the marine biota
surrounding the disposal site to steady state will require from ten to
twenty years,

Because of the many uncertainties in the estimates that form the
basis for these conclusions, the recommendation of a pre-survey of all
areas that are chosen as disposal sites, followed by surveys at inter-
vals after disposal is started, is thought to be an essential part of the

disposal problem,

2 is he

10,

Specific recommendations of the committee include:

1) The quantity of activity that is deposited into any one disposal
area in any one year should be limited to 250 curies.,

2) The quantity of activity that is deposited in any one area dur-=
ing any given month should be limited to 100 curies.,

3) Adjacent disposal areas should be separated by at least 75
miles,

4) No 300 mile section of coast line should contain more than
three disposal areas unless permanent currents, both bottom and sur=
face, indicate that no exchange between areas is possible,

5) The waste container should be of such construction that no
part of it or its contents will float to the surface should the container
be broken, The practice of using steel drums as containers is recom-
mended as giving appreciable holding time in the disposal area,

6) A survey should be conducted prior to disposal operations to
learn pertinent biological and physical properties of the specific loca=
tion, and periodic surveys be conducted after the start of disposal to

learn to what extent the practice has altered the area,

Wa

lil. BACKGROUND

The problems associated with the disposal of radioactive wastes
are not only continuing, they are increasing in both magnitude and
complexity. The use of the oceans as a disposal area has always been
attractive, probably because for most purposes the oceans appear
"limitless'', and therefore offer a reservoir of ''infinite'’ storage or
dilution capacity. All except the very surface of the oceans is considered
(by the uninformed) to be useless so far as human activities are con-
cerned.

Obviously, the main concern in the radioactive waste disposal.
problem is to prevent the wastes from entering man's environment at
levels that will be hazardous. Two basic concepts have developed for
achieving this end, and as a result radioactive wastes are divided into
two categories. Radioactive wastes may be contained, as is now done
in the case of "high level'' wastes, or they may be dispersed, as is
frequently done in the case of ''low level'' wastes. The present study
is concerned with low level wastes and, so far as present practices are
concerned, with a combination of containment in, and dispersion by,
shallow, inshore areas of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United
States.

The first recognition of the problems associated with ocean dis-

posal of radioactive wastes appears to have beena study that produced

TA
maou

aud
bala

ia
fas

bie a al
eS nA Aap

Wig) Laan

ra ee
Fe INR
ie

rite)
ie ne

WA.

NBS Handbook 58 (4). This was published at a time when relatively
little detailed information was available outside of the classified litera-
ture (and probably little within it) concerning the behavior of quantities
of activity above ''tracer levels", when contained in systems comparable
to natural aquatic environments. The definition of high level waste has
changed since publication of the handbook. Hundreds of curies were
then considered high level, whereas present day operations are at the
hundreds of megacurie level, and reasonable estimates of quantities

to be expected in the near future are in the megamega curie range.

The situation has changed so drastically since the publication of Hand-
book 58 that the quantities of activity then considered to be high level
are now in the low end of the low level range.

At the time Handbook 58 was being prepared the marine environ-
ment was not as well understood as it now is. Studies of large scale
eddy diffusion processes, and the development of theories to generalize
the results, were not well enough advanced to permit an evaluation of
the dispersal and dilution of material from a disposal site. Also, very
little was known concerning the extent to which marine organisms can
concentrate dissolved and suspended substances from their environment.
It is not surprising, therefore, that Handbook 58 is primarily an
enumeration of the factors thought at that time to be pertinent to the

containment and dispersal capacity of the oceans. A review of the

(erent Seven

see ee ae

Pela ye he Re Aivtithe ny

i y es

WW
i
iy

TA tan ee
FUREAAE

NS),

disposal problem was recommended as new information became avail-
able.

In 1956 the National Academy of Sciences - National Research
Council organized six committees to examine the biological aspects of
atomic radiation. One of these committees was the Committee on the
Effects of Atomic Radiation on Oceanography and Fisheries. Detailed
results of the studies of this committee were published in 1957 as
Publication 551 of the NAS-NRC (3), and a summary of these results
was included in a summary report of the studies of all six committees (1).

Publication 551 gives a detailed accounting of the state of know-
ledge of the physical, chemical, biological and geological factors in-
volved in the interaction of radioactive wastes, especially fission product
elements, with the marine environment. It also points out areas where
additional studies are needed to furnish the information needed before
reliable predictions can be made of hazards resulting from the disposal
of radioactive wastes into the oceans. While much of this study is con-
cerned with the deep oceans and the massive quantities of materials that
will be produced as a result of nuclear power production, it is, never-
theless, a useful guide in the attempted solution of all problems concerned
with radioactive wastes and the marine environment.

Following the 1956 meetings of the Committee on the Effects of

Atomic Radiation on Oceanography and Fisheries, but before Publication

tay aye cit ian wen ah 4 i

a

a og i |
,2 ante ctal i bias weigie (aie tw alee tyes

. 1) 2 aay 3 a a shout bad ph ed vat) encaliia — 4) f it ;

ee ‘ta ve 196

> BILLS

a oaideal eee eh eee eke Meth atay A
f SS ek Gat s By Dio tataypontey a Bee hy, gis
Ra aaiienthil sat D9 syed ES IY op

?
Dy

aah Cae |i an ShniTe yED iris samt ‘tt
ee di mi \ ii ; ' ht i hy
sdb es eit D ueabchias nats rere", OF eee at oy daa 4

Ste tehed «ees Gah yliae og

ve)

AEE. FD

sid i wey Bes hie 10 wa wage ech am Pet
A evevircs iad het Wi) a meer SEE RATAN 8) RS NDE

ett Wa ghee ete Fee shite

ee yar a
ne APY here er, vomit ieee
“evr AE RT ED ee ay 8) Aa ort Bh oy

i y iy i eS re F A
Pr Nt eth reas org) Pon Ueto Nobek ah BV A ee EP ee
he BOLI DCN t LY fi et ais ay Th

ih i}

tO i) cnt Hite aN ite

TRS) yaa eho

14,

551 was completed, a meeting of several scientists from the United
States and the United Kingdom was held, with liberal exchange of infor-
mation concerning the problems of the disposal of radioactive wastes to
the oceans. At that meeting it was learned that the British Atomic Energy
Authority plant at Windscale, on the Irish Sea, was discharging low level
liquid wastes through a three mile long pipeline, directly into the Irish
Sea. The British Atomic Energy Authority was at that time authorized to
discharge at the rate of 1000 curies per month. The basis for authori-
zation was a series of studies which included (1) the detailed circulation
of the Irish Sea area immediately seaward from the Windscale plant;
_ (2) the uptake of activity by migratory fish that pass through the area;
(3) the contamination of an edible seaweed that is harvested in an ad-
joining area, estimated from the circulation study and uptake experiments;
and (4) the level of contamination of local beaches, estimated from the
circulation study.

It is now believed that as a result of monitoring studies made
during the build-up to the 1000 curie per month discharge level, and
a reassessment of the ''safety factors" that were included in the original
studies and recommendations, authorization has been given to discharge
at the rate of 10,000 curies per month.

A summary of the discussions at the meeting has been distributed

under the title, ''Report of a Meeting of United Kingdom and United

ai oy fs

Be ay

OH Fone re
a

15),

States Scientists on Biological Effects of Radiation in Oceanography and

Fisheries"', National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council,
1 )
October 31, 1956 (5). A portion of that report is quoted below, as it

has direct bearing on the studies of the present committee.

"Disposal into Coastal Waters

"Maximum quantities and rates of disposal of radio-
active substances into coastal waters are set, in all cases,
by two considerations. The first is the transfer of these
substances back to man and his surroundings. The second
is the effect upon the marine resources and environment.
"Bulk Liquids

In coastal waters it will, in general, be possible, in
proper circumstances, to dispose of wastes in dilute liquid
form, but the permissible quantities of radioactivity in such
wastes may be expected to vary considerably from one area
to another because of the diverse nature of coastal situations.

"A careful study is required to determine the safe
quantity of each isotope in each situation, including the details
of the physical, chemical, and biological factors, and the
habits of the human population potentially affected.

"Continuing studies are required at each disposal
locality to insure safety, to determine ultimate steady
state conditions, and to detect possible long term variations
arising from variability of the environment.

"Such investigations have been carried out over a
number of years in the Irish Sea and the results indicate
that fission products can be safely released in that area at
an average rate of several hundred curies a day; it appears
likely, therefore, that similar quantities of waste could be
safely liberated in some other areas.

"In selecting locations for nuclear installations the
waste disposal problems should be taken into account. Be-
cause of the additive effects of wastes independently dis-
charged into the same water mass, the proximity of other
facilities is an important consideration.

"Packaged Wastes

Packaged liquids and sludges in containers which can
rupture and thus liberate their contents to the sea, and
solid materials of density greater than sea water may also

TD etaibose
i Lt

a

‘
Mie

:

wl

i

TOV A es a ny 6) Hea: a : ( even ; ‘ee ae
Ae i e ai net ¥ ; ; Beat 5 . . ah he :

vil

ay

eg ete

a a hy

ONY Ve
Bi AGEL

Pas ee phe
Ae

Mee A oR ce
f

an Aven
LL

TY

ee an

eo
as

16,

be safely disposed of in coastal waters if proper pre-
cautions are observed. The amount of activity which is
dissolved in the sea water, or taken up by organisms,
from such materials is subject to the same limitations as
for bulk liquid wastes.

"Precautions must be taken to guard against re-
covery by fishing or salvage operations, or transport to
areas where the material could constitute a hazard. Dis-
posal areas for such wastes should be in designated loca-
tions, and all disposals should be adequately recorded and
controlled."

Lie

IV, THE PRESENT PROBLEM

The National Academy of Sciences has been requested by the
Atomic Energy Commission to examine the feasibility of establishing
disposal locations in the inshore regions of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts
of the United States, up to twenty-five miles from the shore, into
which low level radioactive wastes may be deposited by authorized
civilian waste disposal companies,

The scope of the problem as seen by the Atomic Energy Com=
mission and some background information are given in Appendix I and
Appendix II of this report, Several pertinent points can be noted here:

1) Limited amounts of low level radioactive wastes have been
deposited in shallow waters (50 fathoms), approximately 12 to 15
miles from shore, for the past several years, This has been done
under authorization from the Atomic Energy Commission, They con-
sider that no hazard is produced at the present level of disposal, but
as the rate of disposal becomes larger their concern increases because
of (a) public relations aspects, (b) increasing possibility of contaminat-
ing shellfish and filter feeders, and (c) physical obstructions of fishing
and trawling areas by the containers holding the wastes, A popular and
somewhat misleading account of the operations of one of the disposal
companies appeared in the Saturday Evening Post on January 75), IWS)5)'8},,

under the title, ''Gangway for the Atomic Garbage Man!"

4 i : }
4 i +p.

J yn <a Wes pn

eataA vi a) wi pibeutidny ms mh nyc

| ii
" i th
ial ne at

M ‘ag ay

j i / sein
ePIC, WAST dan tert: tot ‘y wd ieee he ae ivaidorgy aiid § te

iy ui ti ae ae ee vet it! pM , f

) Rte Dab iA Of now ly One oobi arias ditt! bes ania

teed Beton ed ano wanton dpoting, tanya i si hi

Hoad ov his olenw., 2Y} ir eaaithel layef wrens kolmbanyeien 6 nati

: f ‘ : ; te uch a
vioh goed had ain T . ai sev daweeen Mag hil ha ay

ifeitgatrearcea | urea chika ut at rome

eh Aa OTR DO, Paveh, deere, Pay he Dri Boiap ek saeatat ce

ah Rr, Be oh Se Po ep ie

ne tardy ates too fay yp gt bites Oy ee tek Dae. (ei;

ue dae ech (oy PME: 9&4 dot: ‘tad aft ha ‘¢ :
See tatogod A. yente Hy: iti wert a) areal ote he Ted ‘eat Ni 8 ROY és nid shi

Pet ya) eur sty WO nO hes wae Red pore wats Les daiwa yal abl ¥

oP GS. ya nent) wo HS ae ya syabitad a2 pelt KEI <
; i i
It ae. Saud, acs inci A aay te), -cosegagiot

1 tee aan NT
ea Mi Flee veal ony hi wa j
l ‘| , ! : aly

18,

2) The radioactive materials that may be involved in civilian
disposal operations are those that are produced by the Oak Ridge Nat-
ional Laboratory and distributed to licensed facilities, such as univer=
sity laboratories, hospitals, and industry. In contrast to these, the
low level wastes that arise from AEC inplant operations are now
either contained in land burial areas or carried to the deep sea dis-
posal areas, the latter under an arrangement with the U. S. Navy.

The regulations regarding packaging, shielding, allowable limits, etc.,
for the material given deep sea disposal are contained in Appendix III.
Non-AEC government operations such as the Bureau of Standards,
National Institute of Health, Fish and Wildlife Service, etc. , have no
uniform method of disposal of low level wastes, Each has its own
regulations and disposal means, Presumably the wastes from these
operations may become a part of the load of the authorized civilian
disposal companies,

3) The total quantity of activity shipped by Oak Ridge to con-
tractors east of the Mississippi River plus Louisiana and Texas that
could enter commercial disposal operations on the east coast and Gulf,
during the period January 1956 to September 1957, amounted to
approximately 50,000 curies, at the time of shipment, The isotopes
and quantities are listed in Table 4, Appendix II, Of this total, the

isotopes of strontium, cobalt, cesium, iron, and zinc, these being the

Ne : F Pn al f ort an i ay
any | bie hi ig) Pay Lavereph Gal Mudge wiih) india m4 Oe i AR ies ‘att

1 ARE Beta Rae poy, wal Leiba ally One Peed Aa Re Eg to

\
®

$i Hatwitioda as Sire aet v4 <<

RO Kve@ ePeap boy) tegen epee

bh, oT ‘oor? ee Nib OVAL aS ee be cctast) Gee eit Lire witli . eoreddia
ma ae die hi ys Ds LE SA Wid Oedile Tae 9
ie: a hk tare By ghd ae eat “ait Rhee e Lareit Beran 1g od heomhas

s J Tae

WL Be GT EI paar ee einite gal otbeery Det elt
i iv) 1 l i oh A jae
q ' 4 's ‘, yy i
a we AWOL ian ) SAAT hie | Worg aay yaths apes hiioe
(ul a a MARRY inn fh SNe te yi |

Lt ARMA ME Damian dts Laboquib Koa do hl tasty batres

Ana Ie Vee odd te si SOW. ahGiter edo nent syog"
{ Hy i a}

' H 2 i eye
ae a , eR Bs be Shtibirw bee dard siladht tO esta; at

Oe ce
A ivy } fio b> 4H i Masw lava wt Tr { ee yay tile he: lee :

uy,

eos) th ie ‘ \ ' ; , 1 i
Ant MOR Wetraw sci yidscutov, eet dao) Bae

SRA te beers afi by beck pod 26 4 wt ered Wale ame

Tei Dee Sake Ve nile vieriiag fo. viielaie iain

a Rhee, wate RHAtEivod Agly revit Ayaisaliwnihd ons Jag

/ an iy halle Peony 72 ae id ee) ep ay De WA : rats igt rere sak

: h A BeeePpaaeiye | CAT] aleat oh ah, CAPA Dao eer ey ay Fe
7< , Be tt TDA a8 “4 ©) TG MIC. 2 ‘ Pree ay che Ty sé

RO ae ieee BE wipe! odd da ois G00 02 wig

i) Pp nT gil sb Peet ete ‘j eiboadas bomidu'y’ pi “Tas wth ha

=o,
mn } i A

4 + Ni fi iv f

‘ort; Beli? Oe BAe) area ’ rere | AOR ee Ow fy Bod , feothowye io Dies st

X 1 H : J a ’

WO).

most hazardous from the standpoint of half life, concentration by
organisms, and energy of radiations, amounted to 21,141 curies,
Most of this (21,020 curies) was shipped as ''sealed sources":
metallic cobalt bars used as radiation sources, strontium or cesium
samples used as primary radiation sources for calibration of counting
equipment, etc, The argument has been made that these "sealed
source'! activities very likely will not find their way into commercial
disposal routes, The remainder, 121 curies, constitutes the major
fraction of the activities (at the time of shipment) that is likely to
appear at the dockside for disposal to inshore waters,

An estimate of the quantities of low level wastes that have been
introduced into the oceans is difficult to obtain, The results of an AEC
survey of both government agencies and private companies is contained
in Appendix II, Tables 3 and 4, The total quantity of activity reported
as introduced to the sea (most of it approximately 200 miles offshore)
amounts to less than 25 curies, Ten curies of this was Co 60.

If the 121 curies of "hazardous isotopes'' noted above is a fair
estimate of the potential supply, then the approximately 25 curies that
has been given to sea disposal suggests that approximately 20% of the
shipments from Oak Ridge will eventually appear as wastes for sea

disposal,

te

an Se

me

We tae

A, ' 4 . } ‘

alt RAW tot pire

Aw ay

op

20,

V. BASIS FOR EVALUATING THE POTENTIAL HAZARD

The request from the Atomic Energy Commission to the National
Academy of Sciences asks for recommendations concerning the dis-
posal of radioactive materials that are specified as to kind and within
limits as to quantity and rates of production, The environment into
which the activity may be introduced was specified as the coastal
waters, meaning the area from the shore line seaward for some fif-
teen to twenty-five miles along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the
United States,

The approach that has been taken by the committee is that of
attempting to solve several rather general problems that appeared to
be essential parts of the specific request, but at first with little
regard for actual quantities, specific locations etc, It was felt that the
solution to the general problem would provide the solution for the
specific one, would provide a basis for evaluating other similar prob-=
lems, and would form a firm basis for evaluation of the conclusions of
this committee with respect to the specific request from the Atomic
Energy Commission,

Our approach to the problems is rather simple, at least so far as
outlining the parts and stating what our original demands for the solu-
tions were to be, First, we noted that the potential hazards of radio-

activity to man can be eliminated, or at least reduced, by one of two

SiH hive mee

oe?

‘yagi

ten

=

Nahata
hia

Cac!

21.

procedures, The material can be contained, thereby essentially remov-
ing it from man's environment until the natural radioactive decay pro-=
cess brings it to non-hazardous levels, Under conditions of complete
containment the hazard can be eliminated for all except those who pro-=
cess the material for containment, Or the material may be dispersed .
to such an extent that the concentration of radioactivity in man's
environment is below levels that previous experience has established

as hazardous,

The manner in which radioactive wastes are now prepared for
sea disposal suggests that it is the intent to use the sea both for con-
tainment and for dispersal, The containers are fabricated in an
attempt to have them withstand long submersion without releasing the
activity to the environment, thereby achieving a holding period during
which decay may take place, Once the containers do corrode and rup-
ture the remaining activity is pictured as being dispersed to non-
hazardous levels (if holding has not already achieved this condition) by
the large dilution that is available in the oceans,

Serious difficulties stand in the way of making quantitative esti-
mates of the extent to which either containment or dispersal in the
oceans will achieve the desired end, If containment alone is to be
successful, it must be known that the container will remain intact until

the activity (which must be known as to kind and quantity) has suffi-

hs ay !

it Hi nik

Paty, eA

Weahy Yin init Php mn: mm

nae ae Asis LET Gh rh i

Bae Pt

ie ie ny ‘D

its

22.

ciently decayed, This implies that the corrosion, erosion or leaching
rates for containers can be readily determined, Actually, this is not
so, Properties of this kind can be set only within wide limits,
Attempts to measure the "holding property" of containers designed for
disposal into depths up to 1,000 fathoms indicated considerably more
rupturing and breakup than expected, On the other hand, if dispersal
and dilution of the waste is to be successful, it must be possible to

Pee niate the reduction in concentration by turbulent diffusion processes
for any given rate of introduction into any ocean area, Again, the
uncertainties are rather large,

Our basic approach to these problems is as follows, We consid-
ered first the mechanisms that might bring radioactivity from the
disposal site back to man, There appear to be two such mechanisms,
They are:

A, A combination of diffusion and transport mechanisms whereby
the radioactivity would be carried from the disposal area shoreward so
as to create a hazard to man's industrial or recreational use of the
immediate shore line area,

B. Uptake of the wastes by the marine biota in the disposal area
and in the areas through which the wastes are carried, followed by
transfer of the wastes to fish or shellfish that become food for man,

In evaluating the amount of radioactivity that could be returned to

4

it itr Ane ry

beta MTT oe
6 : i unl i
fi m ea.
; i,
AL
i ot ’
|
ver ine

per fh ab ih

23,

man via these two mechanisms, we have examined the following pro-
cesses and where possible made quantitative estimates of the contribu-
tion of each to the mechanisms noted above,

1, Diffusion processes, An attempt has been made to describe
the distribution of the waste throughout the environment by turbulent
diffusion processes, under assumed conditions of depth, current
velocity, container characteristics, etc, , that appear to be applicable
to actual disposal conditions, In the solution of these problems, given
in detail by R. O, Reid in Appendix IV, certain simplifying assump-
tions have been made, In all cases the simplifications tend to produce
a conservative result, That is, the predicted concentration of activity
will always be greater than the concentrations that will be found under
actual conditions,

2. Transport by permanent or semi-permanent circulation
features,

The circulation along the Atlantic coast is described by B, H, Ketchum
and D, F. Bumpus in Appendix V, Special attention was given to
features that would carry wastes to the coast line, thereby increasing
the chances of creating a hazard in man's uses of the immediate shore,
and to features that might carry the waste into areas of known fishing
potential, thereby increasing the chances of creating a hazard in man's

uses of marine food resources,

Ske TN tel |
— we

24,

3, Concentration of radioactive isotopes by marine organisms,
The extent to which the various isotopes supplied by Oak Ridge are
concentrated in the edible parts of marine organisms has been sum-=
marized by W, A. Chipman and B, H, Ketchum in Appendix VI. Max-
imum permissible concentrations of the various isotopes in sea water
have been calculated by combining these concentration factors with an
estimate of the intake of marine foods by man to obtain the quantity of
each isotope ingested, The maximum permissible concentration in
sea water is the concentration that will give to man through ingestion
of marine fish or shellfish a quantity of activity equal to the amount
received by drinking water containing maximum permissible concen-=
trations,

It should be noted that ingestion of water at MPC levels and
ingestion of food at MPC levels would present twice the permissible
quantities of radioisotopes to an individual,

4, Sorption of radioactive elements by suspended sediments and
bottom deposits,

Inorganic sediment components are known to be effective in removing
dissolved and suspended radioactive waste components, Although
these sorption reactions have been studied in the laboratory and have
been observed in natural aquatic systems, at the present time there

appears to be no way to interpret them ina quantitative\manner that

Zp

will permit an estimate of the extent to which the reaction will occur in
the kind of system we have considered,

Calculations in which concentrations produced by various load-=
ings into disposal areas have been compared with the maximum per-
missible concentrations in sea water, mentioned above, do not include
this reaction. These calculations are, therefore, always conservative
estimates, Thatis, the concentrations of wastes observed in the natu-
ral systems will always be smaller than the calculated values, The
effect of neglecting sorption reactions will depend primarily on the
kind of bottom in the disposal area, In regions of highly turbid
waters with muddy bottoms it is reasonable to assume that a large
fraction of the activity will be sorbed onto the suspended solids and
carried to the bottom as sedimentation occurs, On the other hand, in
relatively clear waters with hard sandy bottoms, the sorption reaction
may be relatively insignificant,

In selection of possible disposal areas, in addition to the consid-=
erations outlined above, the following factors were evaluated:

1, The intensity of fishing in the area, The disposal of wastes
in fishing areas is objectionable not only Becadee of the possibility of
contamination of the fish, but also because an accumulation of con-
tainers on the bottom creates a hazard to fishing equipment, Trawl

gear undoubtedly would become damaged and possibly lost if dragged

Ss nt

ry on ey yi
i ; x
i l ee iy wi
1
i i oh ,
’ a)
f i ‘oD i
‘i | \
ni Le
ey. ; WR
1 ‘
ee Voie % ¥
a) ‘
‘i ae ‘
ae k
a4 ty =
, ye 7
TLL Mi Sate rh? BY Want
i re :
i f
{ ‘ F
TL keh a) iy
hk foul 9
A t
i i
Tot
{ l y
Ly

Kae hg eared tga ligt

esunewhy

Petia

26,

against a concrete disposal container. Furthermore, there is the
possibility that a disposal container might be retrieved by some of the
heavier equipment, thereby exposing the fishermen to a possible
hazard, Mr, Howard Eckles of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
prepared a summary of regions in which fishing activity is known to
take place along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, A portion of that infor-
mation is given in Appendix VII.

2. The distribution of submarine cables, Cable areas often are
dragged in attempts to retrieve broken or otherwise disabled cables in
order that repairs may be made, The deposition of containers of
radioactive wastes in cable areas is undesirable because of the possi-
bility that the containers might be retrieved by cable operations, as
well as possible rupture of the cable during disposal of the containers,
Appendix VIII, prepared by B, C, Heezen, shows the location of

cables along the Atlantic coast of the United States,

i whee»

ton

me

pO PURE

5 i i ; oe

ey ‘
Rt
a =
m2 i
cea
me Wi) Y,
a ; : 0 0h) eb
at
1 = iy
\ i
=
T
r ae ”
at ; j
ie x My To!
i
i
i” =

Zils

VI. DISCUSSION

Of the many problems that were discussed by the committee,
three stand out as being especially important in the return of radio-
activity from the disposal area to man. They are: (a) turbulent diffu-
sion processes, (b) transport by ocean currents, and (c) accumulation
of radioactive materials in the marine biota, especially the species
that are commercially important and are a source of food for man.

The turbulent diffusion problem is discussed in Appendix IV.
Several simplifying assumptions have been made in order that the final
results focus attention on a few important variables, and also to reduce
the bulk of purely mathematical manipulations. In several cases the
effects of these simplifying assumptions can be removed by modification
of the final results. In cases where this is not practical or possible it
is shown that the net effect of the simplifications is to make the calcu-
lated concentrations of radioactivity higher than would be observed in
the natural system. This amounts to a built-in factor of safety in the
conclusions that are based upon these calculations.

The spread of activity by turbulent diffusion processes has been
examined for three different conditions, ie analogous to events
that might happen in nature. They are:

Diffusion from a sustained gross source. The theoretical model is

comparable to the entire disposal area. With the assumption that at

ae
7 Di Ma

ee rey Nan i ae my : He ty tees ; Foren th
aie: ee ey is : are

Dae

tiie

28,

steady state the rate at which activity becomes available for diffusion
is equal to the rate of disposal (no containment), and within certain re-
strictions as to the relative dimensions of the disposal area, water
depth, and distance from the disposal area for which the theory is
valid, a relationship is presented that permits calculation of the max-
imum concentration that will be found at various distances downstream
from the disposal area. A specific case is cited in which the rate of
supply is 100 curies per year, the water depth 30 meters, the diffusivity
1 san” eae, and the current velocity 5 n.mi./day. The maximum con-
centrations at 1, 10, and 100 km downstream from the source will be
2. sz O°, Wyre W08l, eril OO 107! uc/ml respectively. These con-
centrations are approaching the MPC values for drinking water, and as
will be shown later, also the maximum permissible concentrations in
sea water. However, it should be emphasized that these figures are
most certainly on the conservative side. No allowance has been made
for ''cooling" in the disposal container, which would modify the assump-
tion that diffusion rate is equal to disposal rate; and it is assumed that
no removal takes place by processes such as association with bottom
deposits and suspended sediments, or through the marine biota.
Diffusion from individual sources. The analogues of the theoretical
model are the disposal containers. Two cases are conside red. In the

first, the waste is available for diffusion upon contact with the bottom;

TEU IERRE A AH hey int deere sR oal Sage cate yp ate

Reece.) at
;

at

;
oF te
i ay

AMIRI

29.

that is, there is no containment. In the second, the waste leaches from
the container at a rate determined by various properties of the container.
In the first case, a specific example is cited in which 0.01 curie
is contained in 50 gallons, the concentration then being 5.4 x 1077
uc/ml. Ten hours after introduction, the peak concentration, in the ab-
sence of a mean current to aid in dispersal, will be approximately
6x ‘Ome uc/ml. The relationship that has been developed is such that
the maximum concentration can be calculated as a function either of
time after introduction, or of distance from the disposal site. For the
latter case, the peak concentrations at 10, 100 and 1000 meters from
the 50 gallon - 0.01 curie uncontained source will be 1.5x 10 , 3x

“9

10 °, and4x 10me4 uc/ml respectively. Again, these are conservative
figures, for essentially the same reasons as noted above. They suggest
that although initially the contamination at the location of the disposal
container may be high, it dies away rapidly in space and time.

The second case, that of controlled leaching, more nearly describes
the situation that would exist for the disposal of wastes in metal con-
tainers, in which the wastes were mixed with the concrete at the time of
packaging. The analysis of this situation is fon some ways similar to the
"gross source'' noted above. The controlled leaching situation presents

a semi-continuous source for diffusion and although the initial peak con-

centration will be lower than in the case of free diffusion, the concen-

\ nh Ds a
1 Deg a eo
sia whan it bua a a coherent dite 3 ok ;
rae ae
yr wt bal wedi wos ui? area. el occylana wehbe Wh sd

eres OOO steht Wy wh bewitl We pigeinaie aibhionne « Hak ip

04 @ hk tot now ronsentiaade » writ all “a Ga: wt

ety,

wie ht i yoo jenn pied wt apa, apk exnody
a x lnaazetsoat ida od hw vines ausiit m bus ba ketene surg doa &

‘ted aire! as bedolovat apod iad nedld aiianotss oy kT too

Mii aiassa cate by: erie oS 8h. en ilu rhe ot Keo, sigh '%, vei Paro

"y i

ns) tod y tamoghi oils nio+t San avert lovee oc abide

: esha an etean OOGL dae Gl (0) x wigihilltets. iis, Ages} aati
yn ae Re Sah ed Bw as-scan © arbi DHLy’ aii 19.0 2m
ae ae eo ‘ , : ; j ; 1 p me a ‘ La (aie
avi endo HA ake) olay op loweemie ber\ul "Ob ee
oy \ ieowpla yr at even Pater oF oP ORAL erEe oot cr. a

pbeaqulh wd) Ao molisowds ed: ofa insures el yankee

By

array BAG SIA7e t2.y Dias wee Sd Pan 04 Aiop st eal ¥ Aoeh

nodis rae y Ia ee 1 OOOO Renee! boll: to Jo 1a oe Boo eee

¥

7 ee See ty) latent A] euteaw to iwoogeih ott Listes Sivow tans sah
Pop en oer els he aes ied ddw tease. ecu, eon awe eke jatar a i‘
r ‘ i : Z fi u 4 a fi

Sa) ol tallenyia eee OCA MD Bt Hora iio diy lo wey aoaed ee

eiieoria rolauite-gnidbash ballosines eh4T wey ols bROA Veal
f og % 1 ; - iz a.

q . et A 7 Ma . s
, th) ee ey BRebeeins wats ae fais " ole oie | 7, tae eee . i >
a G09 LAtiel. sh) Cyoomts OS HOI TO: osTode OUND 1
u i 7

i Pian tame abs ae ;
# jf gw 5 gil i haute Hey } te SRA ha my ean Y domed ad CEE we:

30.

trations that can be achieved at large distances from the leaching source
will be greater than for free diffusion. 7

If the behavior noted immediately above is taken as the basis for
choosing between containers that will immediately release the wastes
to the environment and ones that will permit a slow release, the choice
should be in favor of the latter. In the specific example cited, the
leaching container reduces the initial peak concentration by a factor of
nearly iO", compared to immediate release, yet the peak concentration
occurring at 10 km from such a source is less than 10 times greater
than from the immediate release container. Furthermore, containment
is desirable as it allows natural radioactive decay to reduce the quantity
of activity that will ultimately be presented to the environment.

Information concerning the rate of corrosion of steel containers,
comparable to those now used in the preparation of wastes for sea dis-
posal, and the leaching rate of radioactive substances from concrete,
is presented in Appendix X. Corrosion rates of steel in sea water
suggest that with the presently used kind and thickness of container
material, containment of the concrete-waste mixture will last for
approximately 10 years. The only leaching rate studies cited were
carried on for relatively short periods of time. While not sufficient to
provide an indication of long-term leaching behavior, they do suggest

that liberation to the environment from concrete mixtures will be

Wiens

iment Ohh

i u
i) Pages:

it

cn

it ee

eudoner ?

Wht
i}
weep DR
Lie aa

oe

considerably slower than predicted for free diffusion.

Transport by ocean currents along the Atlantic coast of the
United States is reviewed in Appendix V. Our present knowledge con-
cerning the details of bottom circulation in shallow inshore regions of
the Atlantic coast is practically nil. In some areas we have fairly de-
tailed information concerning the surface circulation, and we have rather
broad hints as to the behavior of the bottom waters, but there is little
information detailed enough to permit a reliable, quantitative prediction
of the rate of flow shoreward and of the quantities of materials that will
be transported from a given disposal area.

In general, disposal sites have been placed in areas in which the
predominant circulation, estimated from known or extrapolated surface
circulation, appears to parallel the coast, thereby making direct trans-
port to the immediate coast line improbable.

Of special interest are the following features: (a) landward flow
of bottom water at the mouths of estuaries; (b) a general stagnation of
bottom water ina region south of Nantucket Shoals, during the approx-
imately six months of the year in which these waters are stratified;

(c) suggestion of a general shoreward movement of bottom water, in
the area from Virginia to New Jersey, during the summer months, and
a seaward flow during the winter; (d) a counterclockwise eddy in the

Gulf of Maine that may produce longshore non-tidal drifts of up to 6

Mele a Ren

wor eed eA DAT Gd
A ee Gq? hath diSaly 7
tn ay ty -

Veneer ain wolh ig

Vy dear"
Da i Uy |

eee] Ley

[

bh evened:

32,

miles per day; (e) longshore non-tidal drifts in the area from Cape
Hatteras to Georgia that may reach 12 miles per day; (f) a southerly
drift from Georgia to Daytona Beach; and (g) a northerly drift along
the coastal area south of Daytona Beach.

The lack of detailed knowledge of circulation in the areas that
have been selected as disposal areas makes necessary the recommen-
dation that detailed studies be conducted in these areas before disposal
is started.

More information concerning the extent to which marine organisms
can concentrate radioactive substances from sea water is available now
than at the time Publication 551 was conceived. This information is
summarized in Appendix VI, Table I, where it provides a necessary
piece of information for the calculation of maximum permissible con-
centration of the various radioisotopes in sea water. This is defined
as the concentration in sea water that will contaminate the edible parts
of fish or shellfish to such an extent that should these fish be the sole
source of protein for an individual, he would receive an amount of
activity equal to that received by drinking fresh water at MPC levels.
The consumption levels used in these calculations are 15 liters of
water and 1.5 kilograms of fish per week. Also listed are the volumes
of sea water necessary to dilute to MPC levels the quantities of non-

sealed source isotopes that have been produced by Oak Ridge during

tony ane jm ey aad mentale x19 “
jpriocorao ber. ott et soadopm denen

| tweagnid art od ws aot A: niet ett tv

4
jae i : . ; |

‘sermtinaato an aes of nui “

REE | aidntieve Bs a8 is or sry

hh 7 ‘ sit id te
No
wilt LV «imei i be

peered, abbas arlidiaaliad hii dincalainiii ndttnsicoll je

“ : wi ! | AN A |
ey, @er et me ee ee. ree: Fa. ee AWD te eimihs ish bi a

tr

uo - ‘ | |
| , > “7 plisit oe | ld De aoee ecm es 4a, Tey Be. td ons ru ize >on al

. — ot ed Watt pwr aahihial hott dies oS 90 2. O39, Hest

TQi pret

a Hee cor A ee aD yi ODO be hig i ade Linestodbrd w8

¥ setevel aM. hha caiw tepr? quel nich yo. beviuna? intl
Te ei att Cf ane canbdbbindes adler nt been elovela
aati ov “ans aa. botull oalé? \aheaw seq Apt Wo eacatgalas,

wees. 2 eke via. alt, wp heen ee we) Bei of ys sep anne tal8
| rl | a ,
> Fe Pal A ¥ ‘y Aye DER SD 7 “f, i feted” 8 weak Port ud dita re si sn ie

a

ee ae iy dint

JS

the period January 1956 to September 1957.

It is noted that at present production rates phosphorus and iodine
require the greatest dilution to reduce them to non-hazardous levels.
However, these elements unquestionably are not now a hazard since
their short half lives insure that during the time from production to
release to the environment most of the activity will have been destroyed.

Strontium 90 appears as the most likely source of hazard, followed
by copper 64, cesium 137, and iron 59.

The selection of possible disposal sites was guided by two features
in addition to those discussed above. They are the fishing intensity in
the various areas, and the location of submarine cables. The locations
of submarine cables are shown in Appendix VIII. A detailed summary of
fishing intensity has been prepared only for the coastal area from Hud-
son Canyon to Roseway. This information is given in Appendix VII.

Monitoring of disposal areas is an essential and somewhat difficult
part of the disposal problem. A discussion of this part of the problem
is given in Appendix VI. The monitoring consists of two steps, the
first of which is a pre-survey of any selected site. This survey has
three objects: to firmly establish background levels of radioactivity in
the area; to obtain rather detailed measurements of the bottom circu-
lation; and to obtain a census of bottom organisms that live in the

general region. The census will provide data concerning not only the

aed
ve air
eae
Phy

pa +
rl Pac ue ol

ELS e

hd

"

OR a |

a

Tu Wa est) A eet Pi.

i

34,

kind and abundance of species present, but also the current level of
gross radioactivity in each, and the isotopic composition of the radio-
active elements. Special attention will be given to elements that are a
part of the low level wastes that will enter the disposal area. In this
latter regard it seems essential that it be possible to distinguish, during
future stages of monitoring, between activity introduced by disposal
operations and that brought to the region by other means, for example
fallout. This information can be obtained by a continuing comparison
between the disposal area and an adjacent control area outside of the
influence of the disposal area. During the pre-survey the pattern of
fishing activity in the region should be determined and an estimate
made of the extent to which migratory fish inhabit the region.

The second aspect of the monitoring problem has to do with the
surveillance of the area after disposal has started. Two difficulties
should be noted. First, the levels of activity that may constitute a
hazard are low. Therefore the analytical problems connected with
getting and measuring a representative sample from the area are large,
counting levels will be low, and the chances of contamination of the
samples high. Second, it should be emphasized that the establishment
of a steady state condition, with respect to the distribution and levels of
contaminant, will require ten to twenty years at present production

levels. Because of the lag between disposal and possible appearance

" regain 4

35,

of the activity in the environment, there is the likelihood that low
levels during the lag period may be interpreted as an overall measure
of the hazard level.

Because many marine organisms have the ability to concentrate
within themselves substances that appear in their environment, they
stand out as the part of the marine system best suited as an indicator
of radioactive contamination. This appears to be especially true of
bottom organisms. There is merit in the suggestion that bottom organ-
isms, oysters or clams for example, be introduced into an area and
then used as indicators of contamination levels.

The results of a recent survey of the Pacific coast disposal areas
(5), in which dumping has gone on for about ten years, suggest first
that no gross contamination of the environment is now evident, and
second, that in bottom deposits low level contamination by fission
products is difficult to detect and measure against the background of
radium and its daughter products.

Our recommendations concerning the quantities of activity, rates
of disposal, separation of disposal areas, and package characteristics
can be criticized as being extremely conservative, especially when
compared with existing British practices and in the light of preliminary
studies of the disposal areas of the U. S. Pacific coast. We justify

these conclusions, first of all, on the grounds that disposal practices

th

Wiline i

Wee rv Oye CaS | ey Bd
ns ath oF Phebe’ GPL AY ate Caan ms

we Haye 7 eT OIT owl ‘h

sai oS Vis

AOu aed » ® se mt F jee yak a, i Tei Wey et? Wits Uo ae . renee

AT

f ¥; roe me a Barr Eead ; je)
Nees wae pied Ey | ate TG re i
t q t a) ;
¥; ‘"
; sett Af \f al Pay os
Ma eh) a
{ } 1 ' 4 . A byte ‘
i . DOTA EA) a

36,

should be well below hazard levels, and that in view of the large
uncertainties obvious in many of our quantitative estimates, we feel
that conservatism is essential. Secondly, these recommendations
provide adequate capacity for the disposal of quantities of activity
much greater than the currently estimated production level during the

next five years.

PCR oem a oe

a ee,
i \

Lhe bt Siac yn 5 eh perth

nell Gc eth OP Oeo a eal

‘iw; eH i WR e ts ees We i ui ene ihe

i

ile

REFERENCES

The Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation, Summary Reports.
National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council,

(1956).

Looney, William B., Effects of Radium in Man. Science, 127,
no. 3299, p. 630, (1958).

The Effects of Atomic Radiation on Oceanography and Fisheries.
National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council,
Publication Number 551, (1957).

Radioactive Waste Disposal in the Ocean. National Bureau of
Standards Handbook 58, (1954).

Faughn, J. L., etal., A Preliminary Radioactivity Survey along
the California Coast through Disposal Areas. Presented at
Ninth Pacific Science Congress, November 18 = 30, 1957,
Bangkok, Thailand.

huge’
Dame, POX

Lia

APPENDIX 1
Memorandum to Richard C. Vetter, Executive Secretary,
Committe on Oceanography, from Arnold Joseph, The U.S. Atomic

Energy Commission

age hs Dee.

cd LAU het ey REO. ba PAAR RAT

f GUS See

att ee Ok ae a ae bee aE PR ha

io

wort Paces

i
. ‘ &
:
P
acy
°)
P
i
rae f
} |
wey “4
i
;
‘ 4
bea

APPENDIX I

MEMORANDUM TO RICHARD C, VETTER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

The Atomic Energy Commission is faced with a problem of
whether or not to establish sea disposal locations in Atlantic Ocean
waters (for low-level radioactive wastes) closer to shore than the
present designated areas now 100 and more miles out, Would the
Committee on Oceanography consider setting up a special working sub-
committee to look into this matter to give us the benefit of their
deliberations and their recommendations, Time is of the essence, it
is most desirable to have definite conclusions as to the feasibility of
establishing such disposal areas and if feasible to actually establish
these areas by the end of May 1958.

BACKGROUND

For several years, a commercial concern has been disposing of a
limited amount of low-level radioactive wastes in shallow (50 fathoms)
waters approximately 12 to 15 miles from shore, In recent years,
this operation's size has multiplied (the total amount of activity and
number of containers disposed are yet a great deal less than the
amount disposed by the Atomic Energy Commission) and the indications
are that it will become larger still in the future, The Atomic Energy
Commission has not strenuously objected to this shallow water disposal
in the past because the amounts of racioactivity so disposed were not
large (equivalent roughly to what is allowed to be discharged into
sewers) and because there was no real or valid reason for disallowing
it. As the operation becomes larger, however, Atomic Energy Com-
mission's concern increases because of (a) public relations aspects,
(b) increasing possibility of contaminating shellfish and filter feeders,
and (c) physical obstruction of fishing and trawling areas by the con-
tainers holding the wastes,

Compounding this concern is the strong possibility that this kind of
operation may become larger still, Within the past year, Atomic
Energy Commission has received two more applications for licenses
from would-be commercial radioactive waste disposers who would like
to initiate similar operations,

On the other hand, sea disposal operations as conducted in cooper-=
ation with the Navy causes very little concern for the Atomic Energy

Oey) caoe UBS oa | oat Hh ek
j am | ain a paw tei x iy ’ {)

hp PA : i's A
eit J ple ;
¥ Gay Ba u

Wy s Pai ae gt i¢ 19)
i i ‘ae
TO bl ek ee ie , ay ny dda? i,

A bus

wy 2 @
, ; jm seek ’ * ; ,
ye ‘ ‘i eps & * Rite i eae, oF , et Ds od ali
ty meagan ho! ibn sullitar mah weet ih Lave Venta chad
i Mis 4) Valee / ;
asa k ys i
j
t :
‘ey ‘eat
i : : #
3 ¥
' 1 ‘ on hae
a ee a hi! A '
»
pyrene 00}

ay ; + 7

Bray.

ae ah

" Ho) h Tee ye i

Y |

APPENDIX I (Continued)

Commission, These operations generally follow the recommendations
of the National Committee on Radiation Protection (Handbook 58). The
wastes, in weighted containers, are taken out to disposal areas desig-
nated by the Navy as ammunition and hazardous chemical disposal areas,

The Atomic Energy Commission has recommended to the commer-=
cial waste disposers that they dispose of their radioactive wastes in the
designated areas used by the Navy, There are no strong scientific
reasons for requiring them to do so, The commercial operations balk
at going out so far because it would cost them more money = money for
ocean-going vessels and money for the additional time involved, The
additional expense would in turn be reflected in higher charge for their
services, Naturally, they would like their costs to be as low as possible
so that they cannot only compete with each other, but also with other
methods of radioactive waste disposal (such as burial on land).

There exists this seeming conflict of interests - the Atomic Energy
Commission would prefer all radioactive wastes be disposed in the
Navy designated areas whereas the commercial waste disposers would
like to dispose their radioactive wastes as close to shore as possible,
Hence, the Atomic Energy Commission is desirous of examining the
feasibility of establishing designated areas suitable for the disposal of
radioactive wastes closer to the Atlantic Coast line than the disposal
areas now located 100 miles and more from shore in water at least
1000 fathoms deep.

OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

If it can be concluded that it is feasible to dispose of low-level
radioactive wastes in certain areas of the Atlantic Ocean not as distant
from shore as the existing designated areas, then steps can be taken
to establish these areas, and regulations written which will govern
their proper use,

Certain criteria which can be enumerated at this time set the
pattern for the establishment of these disposal locations, Atomic
Energy Commission feels that as many as 4 or 5 disposal areas can be
established along the Atlantic Seaboard, These areas should be conven-=
ient to port facilities not necessarily in the most densely populated
cities but which are accessible by rail or truck by disposers of radio-
activity.

i Pa
' | ; is

i ni

1 vi !

i iM rn

‘

j \ f iy i

t 1 ‘ J

) \ iW 1

5 eg ay "ie Ae th A8 | Sul A
dah iad ie woe HO amAe ai! cf 7
by Pe Loy Dhahes note thor ne ee} tioned) Lae
ig ran Wien! wits ya sn lewido basig raw:
oe |

Hey a ‘tian bytes Aad Settee

A alate: 1 ieee wai xo Wire yet oto kerite
Pe eG) a ee sath yes ai 44 att woreda”

ii enon't wwe dt yd boa a chee

vert wit’) oa abun set ipe a
RT ee ed iol ‘Be Oe

YY ) ene ott nek Yodo is seteey

ne Ce id at Blow oadteg

4p arts CoC emi se LL PELs eee lisesi ;

rt ees, aye WQdA

Petbna ptareht. 0" bee 1A
ue Ve al een Soe ln netate Bike
cane bol sia

hy vi SNe Os ve Tk BR BEATS HM .
. Bf t yieoeethut taba Soom

y cataiesed Ra" fh ON Oat te asst) .
SADR pale wybucty Ky 1S a i as A, are terse .
as Uowveeh goltenderee te

in deeegere x Ni yyy up

¥ 4 aie ee nm 7 ee t 1 &: Ey 5
jeegeets a3 pat Aad? eo Roiols: 6aae Rae
ya aus ha wedaw hive aotien OO boi soa

ook Bat

i TT a Le Ye iy LW t i Bete Teh Oia wo
; whia esa
Wi As Andeib Ba FOO BAL peony SP . Mey 1S as
weiss 4 ) Meat ar! pti Cee ERC
4 7 ry
a a oo het wy rae me iy & i ) ator. * ey ane is ite aN
' ' p if

os] i
} “nl 9 Onn

12 vex tie Tak fe ay wert & yee is eee nls

i) 32 bk Kl i bees re
simnedsh wees eas seogeai) ay STF): 10) LQ AGF we Set 70a8
; wat) nie pega — Sut

Cs >* A Le by Ra ae PE aF

Lae | 4 nS ae a , — “ ; wid

} is

Hon eh DIogie ee ; L
yes 9 My Loree) rl are Bed Wee MER ROH 9S Loi: Ota jog Be
f io Del tase tt ite Ase tiéeh

APPENDIX I (Continued)

These areas should be large enough in extent so as not to require
the most precise navigation to attain them, Location buoys may be
helpful,

They should be so located as not to interfere with sport fishing or
commercial fishing (trawling and shellfishing), Perhaps they can be
located around underwater obstructions, If possible, they should not
be so far out at sea as to require ocean-going vessels,

The study group considering establishing these disposal areas will
almost certainly have to consider how such areas can be operated safely
and without adverse effects on the resources of the sea, Special require-
ments may need to be delineated as to the levels of radioactivity which
may be disposed; the kinds of material, i.e. special treatments of
liquids and solids; and the kinds of containers or packaging methods
best suited to such disposal,

In this latter regard, it should be understood that those closer-in
disposal areas are intended for use principally by commercial waste
disposers or by private organizations, It is not anticipated that Atomic
Energy Commission sea disposal operation will change, at least not in
the foreseeable future. Insofar as other Government agencies may use
commercial services in the future their waste dumpings may switch
from the present designated areas to the closer-in areas if they are
established,

Will the Committee on Oceanography consider sponsoring a
detailed study of this problem? If so it is suggested that a special
study group comprised of scientists and oceanographers familiar with
the Atlantic Coast and of the Government agency people most concerned
with radioactive waste disposal be formed, The following persons are
suggested as a nucleus for this group:

Dayton Carritt Chesapeake Bay Institute
Bostwick Ketchum Woods Hole Institution
Dean Bumpus Hl ui Mt

Howard Eckles Fish & Wildlife Service
Walter Chipman ug ul ut
Arnold Joseph Atomic Energy Commission

Arnold Joseph/ for the
Coordinating Committee on Oceanography

5 Od ;
wy alan
y |
f a eee big!" “tesicadtsd) ‘ Vase
a topos Oy Fert aly Oe PRN, ay aig dipvat, wal use asotR
ed Yee DCMT NORTe ON ies | Mba ‘om pte iN sen wala?
ix o mae PAUP EI
| y Qietde dd piers ayiw of ov aii oy ‘oak ee skit Cet ea il sane
od 165 yout eqedsaS i yratdly attitedta” bad geciwar?) ) yee Uf
| ioe Bipota yas: ‘alaitpa tig ‘I 2 xO1 OFERNRO IN Bre b re Lnapater
\eload oy ptlogy Medou mitaget, hint tie ahem ba Sate
¥ Bi NYA y
(hw orore {edoyalbh ovat coe : ae Dies nae
yviblae Loletsyo ap (ny ehete Bons wie 3 habs hea ae du (iin
earivoey Lamseqe (ae wie Ver georges ot -orhd ae ‘padelta 6 “ay fede
oid viivendonaes Po esa ods ie ae, st isnny het Bt os Down
io sucapneors leigaqgs Lehane, ebb add; bo dune
ditties Gigkteen xe tr orkaINdS HH abated Bilt bad Ve thou
z Lhe oe ath Ao oe
Kinane Seas (i haoteiohas Geile oh {f2 oye't 2
si dmiad LG EMER) By? vil ne oeeeuge Gate GO) Ba Daresgt OS 6 re
Stihl Jewy sti tein, Te: i) J penthe tana ©, afin 29g ya)
he fon ape be Leet era) Ly teeter isang hea wea iG io moreehin
, Php Vie Bhs tO WS roy sword +odie ae kelos nl ptapht oven
Poses WR ew rxicysyt i uy igre eee Tae a etd nei

Sepa OME a, SS RS Phe TOR, wh) a BR ts bavarty (eek thy

6 YoOtrushiags pebianog Vet Braet why fot) ese Aeron $e

£0 Saab fede uligop gee e it Saeed aot ig vb Br
fiber rte ce i

eer Mae rte me S sat Gaia te Sk er
Si} eh GA eri ke PUREE ETARRR SY, TANT

bo itioiae De Sy edt Axes

ooh eat Io boing sone Sie

Si4 enoavsuy Migea Tots oa | ae yo) Tee i ia ow Sy ity
i
stytiimed) ohh eohieeg en so
(0 RIVERS iain a teens Wi mel CyP
hahh Pt fies io eit
4 Ewer Vi stoi bi ew w a) ih. Ws ACIS:
+ re it , nig!
golae mmo Yyrers KERR, taiseot
wit sh} iad. O ielty t

pte (ohare) Bo otttarmiine qcht web Oo

APPENDIX 11
A Special Report on Disposal of Radioactivity
into Atlantic Ocean Waters

Past, Present, and Predicted

Division of Reactor Development, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
Washington 25, D.C.

November 1957

; a Betis hg & Me We
i eeoing So ieie bet Habe seth 1 pig Oe te *
ek Ais ae & ¢h) Cteee ‘ag ;
tao Bene nate, PPA ec he Has ; “
eo Pins Sue. pith eh ns

~ i CALS See ee ;
5 + + A
elie. Pitetee Tore
- a ¥ ;
) ee si
A 4
; ~ i
wy i
re
Saif
gh nS %
<a é ;
> lec 4
, “
Ae ow
; Sirs
4 1H, i 4

Ay

APPENDIX II

A SPECIAL REPORT ON
DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVITY INTO
ATLANTIC OCEAN WATERS
- PAST, PRESENT, AND PREDICTED -

November, 1957

Division of Reactor Development
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission
Washington 25, D. C.

= i
pie rn Ox rv
ray ‘| ,
nan ey
i l P iy r
. J ié ; oa ‘ 7 |
bay z A ¥ ‘
hie
Bi aig ' , ey
; ¥

eT AW Whe inept
TIM (TPR

04 cheater

Dilly ois) AL eae TZ. Ooo
Dr coal ae hogs) 44 5. USA As )
‘

H — WN
1 f a ; ery Le ae

Hn iM : . CG Wl Tn fae ae

A SPECIAL REPORT ON
DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVITY INTO
ATLANTIC OCEAN WATERS
- PAST, PRESENT, AND PREDICTED -

Purpose

This is a special report summarizing sea disposal operations of
agencies of the Federal Government and of private organizations. The
reasons for this report are: (a) to inform interested and concerned officials
and scientists of amounts and kinds of radioactive materials that have been
and will in the near future be disposed of into Atlantic Ocean waters. (b)
To supply quantitative information for a study of the advisability and
feasibility of establishing sea disposal areas closer to the coast line

than existing, designated disposal areas,

Summary of Information Available
Table 1 indicates the size and scope of the Navy-AEC cooperative

Atlantic sea disposal operation. Almost all of these wastes originate in

AEC contractor operations.

i
iif Pre ae ph Hf
DIR br) GAMO pp)
Teen a 31) Sita
if m.) r

ikiens pty
ade anh tal Weta

die | én ‘f

is Dieterich

By nae as

eet Wey LIME WO syaoneatt
aa uate ms ats
; th

tei} tap PG aneabens arta ms) 1h Pe & at

hee ie
uj
) i i
i 1
MN vo:
i rh od
: ve
iV
i
A } i
. 4
WY
Pag ( ae
Mim We fy x

des PEAT»

Sohn: Apvamenry av 06 ierote’

: Reont ase Oirwlabretue er tt owolbes {ace pee. Brus ect
t wads ‘ j
| sc y I ) ReGen ee aeris. Pa
, ;
wit o ay 7 a. , ors fee ¢ Ti ay &
7 é ' i 4 cao art Byte!’ j bs A i
Ooi Lect! Pee gob:
SA is saarsaal
ig my ae FF 4 te) Ok i wh
‘ t
pe 4 5 Hay
} ’ 7 ~

a

7 at ;
by
ere | ,
A} ; mony

; {
;

a rr

a)
LN

o's yi i
aie | il i - i { i é /

Be

Table 1 - PAST AND PROJECTED AMOUNTS OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS
DISPOSED BY U. S. NAVY IN ATLANTIC AT
APPROXIMATELY 38°30'N - 72°06'W

Numbers of 55 Gallon Drums

Category of Waste '51-'52 Uys Sy Sus) Hits SERED
Combustible solids 0 1005

Other contaminated solids 159 1376

Reactor irradiated materials 0 4311

Solidified liquids (0) 1581

Other packages (0) 100

Total number of druns 159 8373 1708 4.78

Estimated curie content

at time of packaging 20 5850

AEC wastes which are dumped at sea are heterogeneous in character and as
a rule contain quantities of activity normally associated with laboratory
experimentation and with decontamination operations. For the most part,
they consist of solid materials such as paper wipes, rags, maps, ashes,
animal carcasses and contaminated laboratory paraphernalia. Some liquids
containing radioactivity in the concentration range of microcuries per
liter have been incorporated in cement mixtures or with chemical gelling
materials prior to packaging and dumping. Because the wastes and their
contaminating radioisotopes are heterogeneous in character, it is difficult
to determine accurately the total quantities of radioactivity involved.

Since the material is of no value very little analytical work is warranted

) dadameehae apatite 6 2 ARENAS net ea
Wed eae wih) VaR ae aetna

we ORT, ORD Pe NOUN a”

0 é pas | Ras ) { 5
Dep thea names : r
7 rt rb) ge
pleat} W]
AYE J are entiaw Gaeeria
crea 2 + ee et wit bein he
. y gt ed
hia + igo ge hate
ot
psa - sob dedi hus amy Pen
mee - a
j
. rye ie L \ a tA

‘
_ - ary iy
,Oeee open .Oge7 . Wow it
’
° aie id ah ee Ay ’ ri i Am
ro RS rR ee PL Lar tana ed eye Ras
bf | :
i] «
‘ y) wa ket i ; - q
} ean : i WIPER AO hs
ran. 7 1 a? mayer fi. Pow’ 17. Pits ee tt dy
3 “ a i ’ Wh) :
fens 2 ; , werpown ye i
2 ii
ye 7 | , a Pare ien etn f4, . e «y is
SFgoP TT. wt al #3 ; +) Wh eete Se i i
ville is
o ARVO PRG 6 oe BOL O23. LP Dtteem Pee one's Osu ans Me OF
f 2

1
4
‘
} f
us 1
o Hava)
i Li A

~3-

to determine these quantities. The operational objective is to dispose of
the materials as efficiently and conveniently as possible so as to eliminate
the nuisance and possible hazard associated with large waste accumulations.
Table 1 summarizes the currently available information on radioactive
wastes dumped in the Atlantic Ocean by the U. S. Navy. The information
supplied appears to be detailed, but the only numbers which can be authen-
ticated are the total numbers of drums dumped annually. All of the other
numbers are judgmental estimates. The categorized numbers of drums are
probably close to actuality whereas the estimated curie content could be

off as much as a factor of 10.

Packaging AEC Wastes for Sea Disposal: The great bulk of AEC wastes

deposited in the sea is contained in 55 gallon drums. Several different
methods of utilizing these drums for waste packaging are used, depending
on the radioactivity of the waste; some of the most common are illustrated
in plate 1. Second hand drums, reconditioned in some cases, are used
throughout. Many of the drums are without tops.

All packages are weighted with concrete or other materials so that
the average package density is sufficiently greater than sea water to assure
sinking. Minimum AEC packaging requirements are as stipulated in the appended

memo from the New York, AEC Operations Office.

AEC Atlantic Ocean Waste Dumpings: The wastes were categorized as in
Table 1 because these groupings lump together wastes which are more or less
of a kind and also wniform in concentration and amount of radioactivity.

A brief description of the measure of radioactivity in these categories of

packages follows.

“)
4

i nel

oe ‘wun ai ye yiinwarr

b gat oA tk Ee sid ke late

Wed

~ i,

hayetun “ge aN TS aii Uso eas ave _ghesietinn cs ae ‘ert bv

}

Dy AR gE LAS Vegan Pare eo area Bot ‘eh il

ar

Ny 1 fe f ab iri): + 1 ’ ret
Wie, Shera to. etedaua bes. oh patho act ‘aselanhi en tatomnihin,

ae Dh o dasines wiieo betundtep ett. caonshe yates it

RRO wer ah pala aNieg aod omw nol aeurrl eos

$n

Pte t O92 POMROS Cnbat why O Ofte palette! “ony wt 2b bbe
a z= ae AO AON, okt Panag

<

Uere StS, ~uenhO qmoe He Desoletl basen: ean, jira Anode :

i Sa 7 (EQGC @Uodd Dye write wiKeti Ale Tey wal

re Me, ‘eet gg ee. Cee ae - bones gah ;
oud oa efariivan wedi ve ateroues ddétw aaah oe fh aee att: Bal
4 Set 7 4 bn aire sw 4 > - i ee i, de fr ‘,
Of Tete gon ned? thduery ylinstoltion el vehaied age teat
; Ty \ ih gata i fue r ne

1. 88 e78 Civetetivpet ele IR

th + , f
Ool310 enaldereah AGA . ert
{
ive y; ’ at “)
P \ ina > oa od et » " Ying ny, ‘me? ’
‘i Cesk ei cs wiew endsaw Ort - eit gigas aire eae,
pipthe Orsay tt vas ihe teary Mbp ih fy ay

BES) YO Tom ete cate meteew dodaned . ma é ie eed ke eee al hg eed
Oh dhl ToeOr hay ho Siaromm, bate Gold egies ch et
; Fe i

~ dealt 30KS Oe 280 ¥ nedy We Ws. bic on other’ LO wea oui Oris oa ae One cael te

4. et OL LOt fa

space for

mixture

Bale of compressed Mixture of waste 30 gallon drum of
combustibles materials and concrete ashes or solidified
liquids

Lead
shielding

Preformed concentric
ea hielde a
cylindrical space for Pao ee ene
more radioactive wastes 5 :
more radioactive wastes

Plate 1 Cut Away Isometric Views Showing Modifications of 55 Gallon drums
for Pakaging Radioactive Wastes Which are Dumped in

The Atlantic Ocean

, “a Ne
cer. hay

ui tote tie

ot

s turd coffe te
Fi ren i ae eo 64 paces » las oe Py:
hattpatten to worlde’:, Pah LE Fete, RON tata
Shit yee
hin a
Cor
a *
i
'
4
:

md

Cate

é- » a , " mm * . r "|
BAe AY LO COT ton

ey wee ee ef ‘ey ew
eH Bape ate Os San Wodles Aen

Faust wets donate ints an wi Lv ta Silat ea

a9 ation bad bid

eee

a5

The category of combustible solids includes materials which are usually
contaminated with mixed fission products or other beta-gamma emitters having
half lives greater than one year. Dose rates up to 500 milliroentgens per
hour at the surface of any package containing these wastes have been measured.
The amount of radioactivity contained in the drum packages ranges from 0
to 1000 millicuries; the average is estimated to be nearer 50.

The category of other contaminated equipment includes such things as
laboratory equipment and used air filters. Contamination is by beta-gamma
emitters with half lives greater than one year. The amount of contamination
ranges somewhat higher than the combustibles - as high as 30 curies per drum.
The median figure, however, is probably closer to 200 millicuries per drum.
These packaged wastes can register as high as one roentgen per hour at the
package surface.

The category of irradiated materials includes reactor fuel samples
and other reactor experiment materials and byproducts of isotope production.

These materials have fairly high specific activities. Containing
packages, as can be seen in plate 1, have limited preformed spaces for
wastes with lead and concrete shielding taking up most of the volume of
the 55 gallon drums. The amount of radioactivity is usually limited to
approximately 10 curies per package. Emitted radiation at the surface of
a drum may be as much as one roentgen per hour.

The category of solidified liquids includes only low level liquid
wastes. No other liquid wastes are disposed of at sea by the U.S. The
radioactivity may be as concentrated to as much as one microcurie per
milliliter and a drum package may contain as many as 100 millicuries.

Some drums of solidified liquids read as high as one roentgen per hour

at the surface of the drum.

phe beta Here GR EE A EN
| hy Intute, wound baht aor

‘rhe O08 09 Ba oad ih ct) ost viata

oa
4

erie Rarer La ph ahd anbeit ‘edn, ‘egy viet gta % oats ”

h Regi oace Te thraky ens beck TD vib: Nbankiies >

OO Le eet ae od aad simi ) tae we 4 he ROE ae q

inure sabe Sond ony Mee Keb at paris: wages recy woe

‘pees ail OO 7M) ak peda tieal Sao eel Or tee ei wer Be ten tat

: ; f

wok mead tabs goo 46 food WAT OU NAay abo Beads hteeTy BONER hed o

ney nin eakee CE ba dati nies poldis eudmos wy aad? sory it. date

ey

gmahibe be wreak i lim OOS. OF tase lS. YideGorg sc ae eed ¢ WTS,

ha “Kj wagiceot ead eh itd-ee Netatgns ned Maree

: ; 7
‘ “ 4 ‘ ‘
im live sm 2) wikes* ‘ b tee § ae) oo s¢ aS
f

chet peivi? 7) Fh. oe Davee j PC, RAE OY !

ain
34
&
>
a
u
ne
es
cs
a
a
=
<

n ;
*) y a ‘ - ,
A, TT tea, eo re wae it Van ORO thence @
= ‘
iT oe Me ae pers sy es aay inte ye Oana jee a
"Yar i Vet, 4 oh peg A pe Bis
f “ 4 ea bs, ;
Rider’ Laval, wot ne Boke land Bebteel Veer
Te a
ay Vv) ae ; BS 7s ; Der Ria) is Ber Bie mat
bali «
i ‘
; Yer ME GUS SE ae a ety Shei cece bP
: ' \
ia gab(lie QOL Aa Saw GR Lee ca ot i
{ . i
ui
ee , : s y ™ Ww,
ici aie aca Nenoivey iasot ed, <igial one Rake RIDER nattsihts
a ' ‘
TAU TR a aS eee Bear en ined welt) Wo
: ‘ Uk a ee } rile i ’ 7 ’ aes GIN ih y
hs ; , Rte CLA rehire Rie
i Ae fy HUI at tats fue NN Ped

ays

Radioactive wastes from AEC operations are deposited in two areas of
the Atlantic Ocean that have been previously designated by the Navy as
"explosives dumping areas." Toxic chemical wastes and defunct munitions
were dumped in these areas for several years before addition of radioactive
wastes. Each of these areas is a 15 mile square, theoretically. The
northernmost area is centered at }1°33' N Latitude, 65°30' W Longitude.
Very few drums of wastes are dumped there - possibly twenty 30 gallon
drum packages, or less, per year since 1951. The dump area which received
the wastes listed in Table 1 is centered at 38930' N Latitude, 72°06' W
Longitude.

Both of these areas are located at the edge of the continental shelf

where the water is about 1000 fathoms deep.

Non-AEC Government Operations: Table 2 summarizes sea disposal opera-
tions by other government agency laboratories. Except for the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service's field installation at Beaufort, North Carolina,
these laboratories are in the Washington, D. &. area.

The waste materials themselves are very much like those from AEC
installations, but the radioactivity is unquestionably of a lower average
magnitude than the radioactivity of the AHC wastes. A wide spectrum of
isotopes is represented. The amounts of radioactivity noted as being
disposed were recorded at the time of packaging, not at time of disposale

Packaging varies among the agencies. The USF&WS disposes of their
tracer experimentation wastes and residues directly to the sea without
packaging - reportedly wastes which normally could be diluted and flushed

into their sewerage system. The National Bureau of Standards and the

m6 bigs wet iad bel goqet ars ‘stabi aren Wh. wont enemy

’ iif

J) toe eval wild bagengbaon b eae aieit ove ‘tae, weedy’ aks a
“wwtddin ua ae hoa tadanw thadancs obey. fs Nias patio
BeLI2aclies Ww ihe ora heat wane, fateves. ol specs latent #' at
¥ edi ¢fteabt oroerdd etoupe oLte fin ab aget swale 204 do
; who? taal W DENYS alactitind m MEME! ca herkedomd ae nota $804

Gilley OF “pact yi elepag) © oxede bequuth ota wena LO ee
pertener dali narue) Grab: et, 9 RRR CN neq vowel To Comal

| pi BOR vebudtted UW OESRE ga Boxedavs of [ eldal at bevoht a

, P s * ‘ ‘ y . q ‘ Hs

at Slots Lalgoatinoo edt To egbe ent ca badwonl ach S9erth went?) tog
; a

7 . ery ie a ; ir .
oe 00d Gacltts? OO0L tIvade Bh Telawt

“heen Canoqath gen textarea, § pldat smrrs send Stent ou Rete
j ri ty
‘f

Si

: ; }
Wats .B 6U elf tol Soom? .cetsoderousl Yorks pete vos *oita

.

mnitoxa? iio! ,dtoward $8 nolieliogant ifakt al é¢eiessS eT hie

eorva 0-0 .acdealdeat 6aF Ch orn. oelio eee

OWA eoxt Scone wlifGicum yiev ors cevfemmens ets beep i ade
) ®y

: Operate tel0l # 16 yidanolieeupoy ef Y eVETSAGOIOST BG7 Gis , wads ai

46 wirtioeow Ohtw A. .cetndw DEA sedi to ytivitoasolbet & Pets e

4 ; : '
a & v =" + ‘ errs - t ‘ ‘ 2
shied aa betad yiivivosutbor TC esimiom » -bodnesenden ak
, tasogqath Yo eadd 4 ton gieyedoay So entd oil ; habrooe'

stent to gogogath masiel eff /,eelonsys aif gues eeiteyY gale

suodtiv son eae od “luce teD seein fine daovasw Ldise nent
J

festaylt ide betelih ed Pian “eh Loan Hotdu woteow vibetacted #4

at? bie abgehaate Fo ceexga Lenotint wit imateys one n wand soit

ye

Naval Ordnance Laboratory package their wastes in much the same fashion as
the AHC installations, i.e., with concrete inside 55 gallon drums. The
National Institutes of Health and the Naval Research Laboratory uniquely
package their wastes with concrete inside small size pre-cast-concrete
burial vaults.

The USF&WS disposes of their wastes in an area 8 miles off shore from
their installation at approximately 34 32'N = 76°40'W. Wastes from the
other agencies are disposed of by the U. S. Coast Guard in a (Navy) designated
ammunition disposal area off Norfolk, Va., centered at approximately 36°30'!N -
7h°18'W.

Private Operations: Table 3 summarizes waste disposal operations by
private companies including the Crossroads Marine Disposal Company which is in
the business of disposing of radioactive waste materials for others. The other
firms listed dispose of their own wastes. In comparison with the operations
of the AEC and the other agencies, these private waste disposal operations
appear to be very small, radioactivity-—wise.

The disposal locations used by these private companies are as varied
as the listing of firms. It appears that the oil tankers dispose of their
companies' wastes while enroute to foreign ports. Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institute disposes of their radioactive wastes 2 miles off shore, while

Crossroads Marine disposes the wastes it receives in Massachusetts Bay.

Upper Limit to Sea Disposal Operations
Table 4 is a listing of isotopes shipped from Oak Ridge to users east

of the Mississippi River, but including Texas and Louisiana. This listing

does not indicate the wastes which are disposed of in the sea, but it does

RO A is , "ah

> DAPI EY, othe ty Meno thet etinkh ae

wile oh Wee Adtonh ter medio ty ent

Ose rises it: ‘NDAD? | vt ry Omer et \ ae lil CATE Hal mn r

25

Table 2 - PAST AND PROJECTED AMOUNTS OF
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS DISPOSED AT SEA

BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Activity En Activity to
Origin of Disposed Number & Kind be disposed
Wastes 9/55-11/57 of Packages next 5 yrs.
US F&wsS 0.235¢ (2) none 0.4 curies
Beaufort, N.C. short-lived
Nat. Bu Stds. <8hme (2) ah (Gen. cams) oases)
Wash. D.C.
Nav. Ord. Lab. none 55 g- drums 39 110 (4)
Silver Spring, Md.
Nav. Res. Lab. 2.8360 (2) (6) 29 vaults 135-55e67)
Wash. D.C. 2 (55g. drums)
Nat. Inst. Health —-1.15¢(8) 29 vaults 56 .05¢(9)
Bethesda, Md. 5 (55¢. drums)

(1)

0.02c MFP, .015¢c Zn65, .08c Cs-137, .02c Ce-1h1, .025c Ca-lh5, .075¢ Sr89

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)
(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

less than 1 mc per package of mixture of C-1), S-35, Ca-l5, Fe-55-59,
Co-58, Sr-90 and Po-210.

250 me/yr of mixture of 33 isotopes from H3 to Ra-226 including Sr-90
and Cs-137.

10c Co-58, 20c Sr-90, 5c Ir-192, 10me I-131, 1c Tm-170, 2c Cs-137,
le Fe-55-59, sle Ra-226

2.836 c of mixed activities

h.2 curies of mixed activities sent to Crossroads Marine Disposal Co.
Boston, Mass. in 59 containers

Plus or minus a factor of 2? of .15c Sr-90, 30c Co-60, 5c Cs-137, 0.2c
Po-210-21),, 0.2c Ra-226, 00c others

O.1 mc to 00 me per package of C-1), Na-22, S=-35, C1236; Cr-51, Fe-55-59,

Ra-226

0.5¢ C-1h, .05c Na-22, 50c H3, 5c S-35, 5mce C1-36, Ole Cr-51, Ole
Fe-55-59, Smc Co-58, O.le Co-60, 0.05¢ Ca-hS, 0.05¢ Sr-89, Ole Ra-226

"
pee web 4 Gee esti oh:
y
Ny ft f He ihe rss Vi
int a 7h ful i NY Weel 4
ma - a oo - —
t Wi
i ”" Bal
r
“rey a
,
re * J
i ;
" ek }
i
A nN
: :
=
te cath A ap a
i
Las - \ «
"848.0 ;
,
rv 2 >
ale i j
, ‘
? =.- * 3
“ini. ehh WEE 7
| a ,
f i 7 i )
4 i i |
o ‘ ‘ s i, ch
7 ta : t
. j
- LF mw ; 6 wih’ "
a4
, i i ng «
* ‘
” > ¢
. 7 ” i
Lt, * to DN ' ‘ &

a

indicate the isotopes which have been sold and (some of) which will end

up as wastes. It does indicate an upper limit to the amount of waste

which can be expected to be disposed for the period indicated no matter

what the fashion; e.g., if one estimated, conservatively, that 10% of

these isotopes would end up as wastes to be disposed of in the sea, the total
number of curies would be relatively small. The sealed sources remain
sealed, so their effect would be one of external radiation, principally
gamma, Most of the isotopes listed have relatively short half lives so

much of the activity would be decayed by the time it reached the sea.

ie

r
Diu!

[ Rare Rea) cs Ay
— opens ot bate, ed 1
4 ’ ra

¢

ee POA UE ote te

md. isi spoon ke qu hae prZeitnw .
* abner oot: one +iaee ichove tater od’ blocs at
“esetontsa ebay seni Be, Sisto blow Jou'tie, shedil
un annie Vat Sree Klee etiee ervantt Sointt gayotonh ed Yo) iim

OR erty boone: ys ian oud ya beaches od bluo: gtivitos Be

t
*

Mi 2S SL-Ni2Soc& SMiL2oLL-NiGE062 !Mi2To9L-Ni SEoTE SMiLToSQ-NiO%0S2 {MiO%SL-NiOSo2E *Mi Q2o9L-NiE

pueTs[ yey Jo yseM TU T

€g-€ SON ssey

jo o€ ssessod 04 pesusdtT
eroys JJO FU OSZ

Ton

*6geq “s9uz 60909 “TELL *2ty

‘cteo “12eN “SES “eed “tO FO
om [e104 6QtTL 1OF pesusotyT

umip zed pues JO SqT 002

exoys JJO TU OgT

\

(%F OST)
Ni€Zo9T 94 10S509E

er0ys
JJO Ju ZT (95 2TE)
MiS€g0L-N1S°SZ0eN

($F 002T)
Hi€E,68-Ns Tole

e10ys Jjo Tm Z

(1) or zte4

ooTxey JO FIN
qu-o€ 7 (F-OOLT)
Mi StToSL-NiO0Eoce

sumiIp Tes O€ UTYITA 9OTNY SUG
eye1ou0s Aq pepuno.ims HETSO ous
ezedde qe—T wequod prtos 6Q2g oUg

(s)umap Ted O€
ZUTPUNOIMS 83 910U0D yf]

°OSTM 9G

peyserou0s uUNIp 345 09°9 20T
sued peTess *pequstom é

SI9q40

snqtd z€q ‘TEL
‘To SCH °65er
Fo yoes 97 04 T

09 *S2T 9S
98 ow 0$z2-05

OTL 2¥ UT°O
(seni a8)

(sumip 35) OLT

(sumap ¥0€) t20T
(sumzp 3¢S) off °90 *dstq supzey speoisso19

20T/# 2¢¢ uo

om 600°? 65°L
ou [O° UqTM °e9

(sumap 255) gL

eq ow LET

Mi(SoSLl-Ni€€oz€ §MiQto9L-NiLZoTE
SMsTEO9L-NiOToTE (T)

*pu ‘ertouryTed

fqapsisatug sutydoy suyor

*ssey *u07sOg

sexey, ‘setteq

°O9 UMeTOIZe8g eT LOUZeW

°ssey SeTOH spoom

*q4sUz *9Q STOH Spoom

*p °N foaoqstned

°09 TFO TrqoW Auosog

ceq ‘etudtepetiud

°o9 Supuryey OTQUeTIV

a aS SS See

syreuey

(uydeq) Tesodstq
JO uot edoT

supseyoeg sik G 4 Xe

SHINVdNOD SIVATYd Ad

VAS LV GASOUSIG SIVIUALVH AATLOVOIGVA 40 SINNOWV GaLOGroud GNV LSvd

-0T-

LS/T1-55/6
pesodstq szunouy

_ sasem
Jo utzts0

a

ean 12d

Lal

ag. 8225 a7

aad

2

Side

Table } - RADIOISOTOPES SHIPPED TO LICENSEES EAST OF
MISSISSIPPL RIVER PLUS TEXAS AND LOUISIANA

- January 1956 to September 1957 -

Iodine 131 - 1050 curies
Phosphorus 32 - 2l),.8 curies
Carbon 1) - 17 curies
H 3 - 247.5 curies in sealed sources
6219 curies as other material
Strontium 89-90 - 38.); curies as sealed sources
1.93 curies as other material
Cobalt 60 - 17196 curies as sealed sources
2.97 curies as other material
Cesium 137 - 3786 curies as sealed sources
11) curies as other material
Iridium 192 - 9189.7 curies as sealed sources
20.5 curies as other material
Calcium 5 - .37 curies
Chromium 51 - 7-1 curies
Tron 59 - .98 curies
K 2 - 5.5 curies
Na 2 = 3.5 curies
S 35 = 21.5 curies
Zn 65 + 1.2 curies
Kr 85 = 361.3 curies as sealed sources
65.5 curies as other material
Copper 6 - 13 curies other isotopes
77.0 curies,as sealed sources
270.5 curies other

The sealed versus the other are based on licensed quantities rather
than shipped quantity.

WO THE coRins! | OF RRR PORATION

sig ta vi gfe tS ME. uh ite oi - j

hei 5) ea

+ Su Aaya oT De ote vinreRc oo

vajd ORK

= satiny Blk =

tole VP

wetuids belaed at salseg

Satter as iatty 8m ARES,

seorwoe bafaee te aalbion debt. + OFS
farosten: Wario Ga geld Etat ;
aooqeoe Pilea eo Gabi Of ve ~~

4) Slade NNO SR. BI fers A
aerwod tulaen eA Sadsive ANTE +
‘shtalon ‘yredeo ts Gebteo air :

sen tiiad Daileed) a4 sat \ OBE
faitogum wih 4A DADS ¢
hese TE
- orth e dae

il , CaN ‘ wih THAD & " a

irate se) ania

C@QOWNIMA +b) ia. STA

eerie a Bi + “« eon, y ots te

APPENDIX III

Packaging of Contaminated (Radioactive) Scrap for Disposal

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, NYOO
Health and Safety Laboratory
70 Columbus Avenue
New York 23,N.Y.

\ ?

LC, Phe Repke ie ielrta een es pe anes Leas op ee Aes Phin
Soon al ds Sea ates

Ahi 0B aR Ripe ee

PPC PS Se ae ae ae

Appendix III

U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
NEW YORK OPERATIONS OFFICE
HEALTH AND SAFETY LABORATORY
70 COLUMBUS AVENUE
NEW YORK 23, NEW YORK

PACKAGING OF CONTAMINATED (RADIOACTIVE ) SCRAP FOR DISPOSAL

The New York Operations Office has arranged to assist local AEC contrac-
tors in disposing of limited quantities of incombustible waste contaminated
by radioactive materials. It is important that any wastes which can be
stored and permitted to decay to a suitable level for local disposition

be handled in this manner. MIncombustible waste may include any material
that can be packed in accordance with I.C.C. regulations for labeled pack-
ages. Wherever practical, combustibles should be burned on site. This
office should be consulted in case of question.

Combustible waste should include such materials as papers and rags, and
may also include small amounts of broken glassware, Since it is generally
incinerated without inspection, it should not include any materials which
are explosive, either by nature or by virture of the method of packing
(such as liquid in a sealed container).

Packing - General

All waste should be packed to comply with the instructions set forth in
the Manual pertaining to the Transportation of Radioactive Materials and
Other Dangerous Materials. The radiation limits are 200 mr at the surface
of the package and 10 mr per hour at one meter from the source. This is
intended to cover only penetrating gamma radiation, but for our purpose
should include beta plus gamma, There should be no detectable surface
contamination on the outside of the package. A standard I.C.C. red label
properly executed should be affixed if the radiation level exceeds 10 mr
per 2); hours at any surface.

No accountable materials should be included. Such (Source and Fissionable)
materials include normal uranium, thorium, enriched uranium or plutonium.
Any waste or scrap involving these materials must be accounted for through
the S.F. Accountability Branch, Technical Liaison Division.

Each package of incombustible waste should have affixed a green "Incombus-
tible Contaminated (Radioactive) Waste" label signed by the person respon-
sible or the shipment with the name of the shipper given.

Oe
1. Material shall be sealed in covered steel drums

2. Standard drums of 5 gallons, 30 gallons, and 55 gallons capacity
shall be used.

3. Each drum shall be weighed before shipment, and clearly and permanently
marked with its weight.

). No drum shall be shipped unless its weight exceed the following:

5 gallons - 50 pounds
30 gallons = 300 pounds
55 gallons - 550 pounds

5. No individual drum shall exceed 750 pounds

6. Any single unit too large to be inserted in a 55 gallon drum shall
be packaged adequately for shipment and handling, and the package
shall be marked as specified in Item 3, but shall state the lbs/cu.ft.
of the final package.

7. Specific notice shall be given when any individual package exceeds
750 pounds.

Incombustible Waste

Materials which cannot be readily reduced in velume by incineration should
be packed in a manner suitable for sea immersion. In general, this covers
metal, glassware, or liquids. The material should be placed in a steel
drum of either 5 or 30 gallon capacity and the drum filled with poured con-
crete to give a minimum density of 75 pounds per cubic foot. (This is
approximately 10 pounds per gallon capacity). The drum should be made of
19 gauge (.037") steel and the concrete at the top of the drum should be
reinforced with steel wire screen or rods. If the radioactivity of the
contents requires it, the material should be kept at the center of the
container by means of a second inner container in order to utilize the
outer layer of concrete as a radiation shield. Low level radioactive
liquids may be introduced into a drum by using the liquid instead of water
in preparing the concrete. Care should be taken, however, to keep the
surface radiation within the prescribed limits.

If such incombustible package is to be sent by common carrier‘, it
should either have a top welded on in compliance with I.C.C. Specifica-
tion 17X or be packed in an outer wooden container I,C.C. Specification
15A, In any event, the drum should be lidded in such a ao as to
enclose the sonenete completely.

% See Shipping

Shipping

Arrangements for disposal of wastes in this manner should be made prior
to preparation through the Administration Operations Division, Property
Branch, NYOO. Specific instructions will then be given for shipment,
including information as to whether common carrier is to be used.

At the time of each shipment NY Form 78 (Shipment Monitoring Record)
should be filled out and forwarded to this office, attention Property
Branch. Form 78 provides for a record of the nature of the material
and an estimate of the activity. Please avoid use of the term "less
than" in describing activity or radiation.

Materials and packages other than those meeting these specifications

may be disposed of by special arrangements. Shipments not conforming

to these specifications, for which no special arrangements has been made,
will be refused unloading at the disposal site.

Necessary labels and forms may be obtained from this office.

APPENDIX 1V

An Analysis of Dispersal of Radioactivity from Local Sources on the
Sea Bed

R.O. Reid

Cre wis

anaes) Perce ;

=~

Te eae aa

ne

APPENDIX IV

AN ANALYSIS OF DISPERSAL OF RADIOACTIVITY FROM LOCAL
SOURCES ON THE SEA BED *

R. O. Reid

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the following analysis is to establish upper limits on the
concentrations of radioactivity which might occur in sea water under certain
prescribed conditions of sources on the bottom in the relatively shallow water
regions of the continental shelf. A number of assumptions must be made in
regard to the diffusive properties of the water, the currents and the character
of the sources, In all cases the assumptions utilized are deliberately taken to err
in favor of large concentrations. In other words, the intent of the present analysis
is not to give an accurate description of the diffusion processes but to give some
limiting values of concentrations in the sea under the most extreme conditions
which can be visualized,

The following stipulations apply throughout the present analysis:

(a) The radioactivity of the sea water is not depleted by adsorption of the
radio isotopes on the bottom.

(b) The natural decay of the isotopes is neglected (i.e. , the radioactive half
life of the isotopes is considered infinite) .

(c) The diffusion process is considered to be Fickian (i.e. , the diffusivity

coefficient is isotropic and uniform throughout the sea water).

* Contribution from the Department of Oceanography and Meteorology of
the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, Oceanography and
Meteorology Series No.

at

(d) The ocean is considered to be of uniform depth, equal to the depth
at the source and no flux of radioactivity is presumed to occur across the
upper or lower boundaries (however, the special case of infinite depth is
considered in part of the analysis).

The assumption of Fickian diffusion implies that the decay of activity
concentration with distance from the source region is much slower than is
known to occur under actual conditions in the presence of turbulence [ Sutton
(1953), p. 279 ] . The assumption of no adsorption on the sea bed and no
natural radioactive decay obviously leads to an overestimate of activity con-
centrations within the sea water.

The problem is treated from both a gross source standpoint and an indi-
vidual source point of view. In the gross source problem, we visualize that a
specified amount of radioactivity is deposited continuously within a certain
confined area of the sea bed per unit time and that this material is in a form
which is subject to dispersal from the source area by diffusion and currents.
Actually the material deposited is in the form of packages which may contain
the material long enough that natural decay renders it harmless. On the other
hand, the contents of packages may, conceivably, be subject to dispersal due
to destruction of the container by impact or errosion or to dispersal through
a continuous leaching action. This we presume occurs on the average at a rate
equal to the average rate of addition of the packages. In other words, we
visualize that the radioactive material is effectively flowing into the source
area on the sea bed in solution form at a steady uniform rate and dispersing
into the environment at the same rate, For all practical purposes the lateral

extent of the environment (hence its capacity) can be considered infinite, and

the distribution of concentration steady.

Since the source area is actually a collection of discrete small sources,
the question of micro-scale distribution of concentration arises, In this case
the individual packages are treated as small but finite box sources of known
volume and surface area. We consider two different problems in order to es-
tablish certain limits of activity concentration: (a) If the complete contents
of the box are suddenly allowed to disperse into the environment we have the
case of an instantaneous source and the resulting distribution of concentration
in the environment is time dependent. (b) If the radioactive material is sub-
ject to a uniform rate of leaching through the walls of the box we have the case
of a continuous source where a steady state of distribution of concentration is
attained in the vicinity of the source. In both cases our interest focuses on the
maximum concentration which may result at different distances from the source.
For case (a) we are also interested in evaluating the time for which the activity

concentration is above a prescribed value.

I, SUSTAINED GROSS SOURCE
We consider a source area on the sea bed with horizontal dimensions LxL
in a depth of water D. Furthermore, we consider a uniform current of speed
U_ parallel to shore, For large distances from the center of the source area,
particularly if D< L , the source is essentially equivalent to a vertical line
source contained between two parallel planes, If Q; ee ReSSTIiS the rate of

supply of radioactivity of a given isotope to the source region (and also the rate

due to

of dispersal as well) , then the concentration of radioactivity, Cc.

isotope i atadistance x from the center of the source (in the direction of

the current) is approximately

Cc. = = exp ea (1)
Minyanmm | \4Kx
where K _ is the diffusivity coefficient (under turbulent conditions) and y is
the transverse distance measured from the axis of the dispersed material (see
Fig.1). Eq.(1) applies for Fickian type diffusion and since it is restricted to
distances x which are large relative to L , the formula cannot be used for
concentrations within the source region. The equation is an adaptation of the
formula given by Sutton (p. 137 , Eq. 4,43) for a continuous line source across
wind: In the present case the plume is taken with a vertical plane of symmetry
with the material from the source dispersing equally on each side; consequently
we take half the source strength given by Sutton's formula (where the dispersal
is confined to one side of the plane of symmetry only). However, if the source
were very close to shore then Sutton's formula would apply directly. Thus the
influence of the proximity of the shore can at the very most, increase the con-
centrations by a factor of two over those indicated by Eq. (1). This is small
considering the fact that other safety factors involved in our present computations
tend to give concentrations which are overestimated by at least one or even two
orders of magnitude,
The maximum concentration for isotope i atdistance x from the

source is simply

(Ci) a (2)

* Note that in Sutton's formula 4,44, U is omitted in the ttrmwW27KUx ;
apparently this is a typographical error.

eS y Si 7 , LT mal heh Res bparrvi y ve ) ati i. i

. MA cy ot ual eee wi Cia

a ru
3 Wi a Ay
rw :
t A ey f ri
“as Ai oy
‘ ’ f
a
¥ boi { een is att j t bal Cia Z ;
. nA | ‘i aith pile! My ( ei
> Nr nee sian a » ‘ a
CREP § i it ETS epee eran

- eae?) BLS -fwl Se yetes fi
‘ae f ; } i
us rly bal ELH ilet ,
, i i A ey
‘ , - ns
9 eee reve, .
a wea")
rR. By cuvad ;
en 2 a” ‘
2. AAR een iy’ aati f

We i v4 i
poe Poe) ey + eT
(OTe ai ps
i \ eins

a9) avi f ‘ } a i}s ype

TP Ara rey opi baw rie athy

et a A

nye @ ns
aheematiN ee WORST. Mmbedy ced 4,
4 d aa
OW lie Te), Oleh ey 8) '
i
Mth sey}: Pienrael, vi ine fen?
ai ,
t
tf &
cy ry ‘
TET
*
ne as a i
7
\
f
{ $ NA ’ ,
. 7 a uh | Pg ey REN Dai Bid
Z al i
be i aa> et ee (ol sf hry +

SJOYNOS SSOYS WOY4 1VSUAdSIC 40 DILVNSHOS
| 4YNSIS

19. $9 SAUI/OS]

provided that x>>L. This is the concentration along the axis of the plume
(i.e., the x axis). In contrast with Eq. (2), Sutton (p. 276-7) indicates that
the empirical results of smoke plume experiments indicates that the concentration
is inversely proportional to the wind speed to the first power and also drops in-
OO 6 0.5 : :
verselyas x instead ofas x , for a uniform line source. The formula
based upon the Fickian diffusion therefore gives an upper limit of possible con-
centration at a given distance x and also overestimates the concentration in

the presence of a moderate or strong current.

As numerical example, consider the following conditions :

Q, = 100 curies per year for C3187
D = 30 meters
Ie tao saa’) sec (for stable stratification with

weak currents )

U = 10cm/sec (approx. 5 n.mi/day) .

Then

(ooo = 0.21/ 4x (3)

i
where (Co ee is in uc/m® and x isin kilometers. The estimate of
K_ given above is really applicable for vertical mixing. Measurements of hori-

3 cm/sec

zontal diffusion in the surface layers indicate values of K inexcess of 10
(Ketchum and Ford, 1952 and Moon, et.al. , 1957). Thus the values of concentration
indicated by (3) are probably overestimated by at least one order of magnitude,
However, since we know very little about the horizontal mixing near the sea bed,

the very low value of K _ is taken as a factor of safety. Values of C, as obtained

from (3) for different distances from the center of the source are listed in Table I.

These are expressed in terms of activity per unit mass as well as volume of sea

water.
TABLE I
Q = 100 curies per year
137
(Clee)
X Ci
(km ) pc/m? wc/kg
1 0.21 .00021
2 (0), 1) .00015
4 0.10 .00010
10 0.07 . 00007
20 0.05 .00005
40 0.03 . 00003
100 0.02 .00002

Il, ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL SOURCES
A. Instantaneous Source
For an instantaneous point source in an infinite, isotropic medium in the

absence of any mean current

Mj r° A
ee Rioemee Bike iy

where t is the elapsed time from the instant of introduction of the isotope i

of total radioactivity M,; , and C; is the concentration of radioactivity due to
this isotope at the distance r from the point of introduction (Sutton, p. 134).
Here it is considered that the amount of radioactivity M, occupies an infinitely
small volume at r=0 when t=0

, sothat CC, is infinite at the source and

C; =O everywhere else initially. For a finite box source of dimensions 2a, 2b,

h resting on a plane surface in a semi-infinite medium (see Fig. 2) we have

for the total amount of radioactivity M; = 4abh C where C,; is the finite

oi’
initial concentration of radioactivity in the source. The dispersion from the

finite box source can be formulated from relation (4) by considering all sources

within the finite box at positions x!, y!, 2! and of strength C.. dx! dy! dz!

thus :
a b h
¢,- 8 (ot Jat fon ee
8 (4 Kt)?/2 : i AKt

(5)
where Co is presumed uniform throughout the box source. The integration is
extended over an image source below the surface in order to satisfy the boundary
condition of zero flux through the horizontal plane at z=0 , and assures the con-
tinuity condition that the total amount of radioactivity of isotope i above the
plane z=0 isequalto M, atall times.

Carrying out the integrations indicated in Eq. (5) gives

Cae Ces (SS : 1) ] [ 6@aP)- s(n) ]

x 9Ga) -8 (nr) 1, (6)
where
m = 2Kt (7)

and ¢(f8) is the probability integral defined by

ae .
d (8) - [s ( SOS. (8)

O

and has the properties

JOYNOS XOE JTIONIS SAO AYLANOSS
@ Skills

SSS el

| g0inog ebDUT
0

IDINOS

Og
Gc

f(- B) = - d (A) (8a)

d(m)=1/2 . (8b)

It may be noted that for |x\ka, lyl< b, |zl<h, Eq. (6) gives C. = Cc.

at t=0 inview of (8a,b); while for |xl>a_ oor ly|J>b or (z|>h, C; =0
at t=0 as desired.

For simplicity we will consider the special case where a =b=h and hence

the volume of the source is 4a? . At the point x=y=z=0 inthe source,

Eq. (6) then reduces to

3
a = 8 Be) : (9)

Thus the relative concentration C; /C Oi at the center of the source is a function

of Kt/ a“ only. For sufficiently large t(t> a“/K),

2 3/2
ca a{ a ) (10)
Coi wKt

, C; = C,; . A plot of the general

at the center of the source; while at t=0
relation (9) for the decay of concentration at the center of the instantaneous box
source is shown in Fig. 3. The specific time scale at the top of this graph is

3

based upon K=1 cm/sec and a = 36cm (corresponding to a volume of 0.186m

or about 50 gal). The value of C 4 is of course given by
fo)

Cui = 3 : (11)

Thus if M, = 0.01 curie for isotope Ca in one package source, then

Cai = 54m c/m®* or 54 wc/kg , which would decay to a concentration of

0.06 wc/kg -in about10 hours even without any mean current to aid the dispersal.

av

RELATIVE CONCENTRATION AT SOURCE

oO On OOO

ao fb ANDVNDOWO—

(K=| cm2/sec,, A=36 cm., V=49gal.)

Ihr,

Asymp tote.

oe
— 2
(=

6 6789! DSTA Omen GIO 2
| 0)
Kt :
ae
FIGURE 3

DIFFUSSIVE DECAY OF CONCENTRATION AT SOURCE
SOURCE ON BOT TOM
D=00

|.Ohrs.

3.4 567891
100

=:

It should be emphasized that this analysis presumes that the radioactive
contents of the package are suddenly released to the environment in a form
which is subject to diffusion processes, The assumption of a semi infinite
medium (infinite depth) was made in this case; the effect of finite depth will
be felt when the material has diffused significantly to the actual surface, which
occurs only after C; at the source has dropped by a factor of about 1000.
Thus Fig. 3 should be adequate up to about 10 hours even if the depth is of the
order of 30 meters.

It can be shown that for sufficiently large distances from the finite box

source (r >>a), Eq. (6) reduces approximately to

C ANAC 2
Re (ke exp (- = (12
Cai (2) 2 ( ES). )

In view of Eq. (11) this formula is the same as the point source formula (4) if

the source strength is takenas 2M, (to account for the boundary effect which
is represented by an image source of strength M;).

If an upper boundary is imposed at z=D , through which no flux can occur
then we must add a succession of image sources along the z axis at intervals
of 2D above and below the actual source in order to achieve the correct
boundary conditions at both top and bottom. The resulting relation for Cc, for

x,y >D and sufficiently large t is

emnD
weil vay ae ep || oS (13)
Gao D ait 4Kt

3

which corresponds to a uniform line source of strength 4a Coi /D_ along the

(cop tiee aly
: a ti ; iv
Re Oana
; ve
St
van © y

‘ é eA
THe yl (ode et
ig
, j
j OT Oe | ry
.] y
DF A OM
i »
ws }
1
=

eect rcv

‘ity

etm “hl

10

z axis between the planes z=0 and z=D. Eq. (12) applies for small t
while Eq. (13) applies for large t after the upper boundary begins to sig-
nificantly effect the dispersion.

Our main interest lies in the maximum concentrations which occur at
different distances from the source. It can be seen from either Eq. (12) or

(13) that the exponential term increases as t increases while the term rl

-3 3 2 : are
or t /2 decreases. Hence there exists a particular time for each position
at which CG; is a maximum.

The time of maximum C,; from Eq. (12) is readily found to be

r?
Paes 14
and that for Eq. (13) is
2
re
Oe Es)

Substituting these expressions into Eq. (12) and (13) respectively gives for

the maximum concentrations of radioactivity at Ir:

: 3/2 3 3
lem = ( 6 ) (2) = 0.59( 2] (16)
Co Te r r

2 2
Sy ee NY = 0 Ae (17)
Cai wpe 1D) \\ i D is

for r>D where r _ is the radial distance from the source along the bottom.
It is of interest to note that the maximum concentration at any position r is

independent of the diffusivity coefficient K-. However, the time at which this

11

maximum concentration occurs certainly depends upon K as we see from
Eq.(14) and (15). As a matter of fact K is essentially a measure of the
rate of spreading of the material from the source, in the sense that

fig -/ dt=2K where o is the standard deviation of the distribution of
C, about the source at time t.

The maximum relative concentration of radioactivity, Ce C, , for a
given isotope as a function of relative distance from the source is shown in
Fig. 4. Curve (1) corresponds to Eq. (16) and curve (2) to Eq. (17), the
latter applying to the special case of D/a =100 (i.e.,D =36m for a= 36cm).
For any r/a , the curve with the greatest Cc/C, governs ; thus curve (1)
governs for r/a < 100 , curve (2) for 100 <r/a < 2000. For r/a> 2000
(rx > 0.5 n.mi.) other considerations enter in establishing the maximum con-
centration which might occur at large distance from the individual source.

we suppose that M, = 0.01 curie for isotope csl3? for a single package
source (Ci = 54 wc/kg) , then the maximum radioactivity by this isotope is
about .0015 pc/kg at 10m from the source, 3 x 107° pc/kg at 100m and
4x ia wc/kg atl km. It must be remembered however, that these values
apply to but one package (assuming M; = .01 curie for eee” ); the total con-
centration of radioactivity at a given position is the sum of the effects from all
packages and all isotopes in the source area,

At a distance of about 1 km from an instantaneous package source

Cd Ge is about 8x10 10 . [If the sum total ofall packages for a year were

PUL LTE en

th atte 4 ¥ ash ore

4 bis By yo) en Bs NTN
ry q i

AOYNOS WOYS JONVLSIG SNSYSA NOILVYLNSONOD SALW 1SYy

v SYNSIA

WHOO! WHO} wy] waol wo] Ww] wd |

(440 ])W99¢E=D YO4 SSFONVLSIG

Ht |
ame
.

:

|

9-Ol= W/4 ‘B=G ‘204
buiyI0a7 uUwdosiun JO 82INOS

, X0g, snonuyjuog 40f 99/79 ©

%
Be
7

/|

OO/= 9G “wosjog ue
PIMNOS XOG, SNOAUD{UD{ SU te

404 9749 XOW @

@=g ‘Wwo{Jog uO
a94un0s xog, snoauD{UD{ SUT
4oy P99 XOW

YP
So

eR!
q
fe)

KR
o

o
Q

) FONVLSIG 3ALV13Y

(o)
%
FONVISIO SAILV13Y

a

= ~ hin ie ee

bi y ey
Raye it

i)

12

suddenly dispersed from a common origin simultaneously, and M; = 100 curies
for the total activity of C_!8” , then C,, would be about .0004 pc/kg atl km.
This is only twice that given in Table I based upon a continuous supply at the

rate of 100 curies per year.

B, Continuous Source at Uniform Leaching Rate

In the preceding analysis it was considered that the total material in the
package source was released instantaneously. Consider now that the walls of
the container are permeable and of thickness proportional to the size a. We
will make the following hypothesis: the amount of radioactivity diffusing through
the permeable walls per unit time is directly proportional to the surface area of
the container, directly proportional to the difference in concentrations inside
and immediately outside the container and inversely proportional to the thickness
of the walls, Thus if Q is the rate of leaching for a given isotope then it is
presumed that

Q, = ty Sante (18)

where AC, is the concentration inside the container minus that at the outer
walls, A is the exposed surface area and k is a constant for the isotope
considered,

For a box of dimensions 2a x 2a xa resting on the bottom, A= 12a*
while the volume is 4a, In the initial stage the concentration outside the box

will be very small compared with that inside and we can take as the upper limit

of AC; simply M; / 4a? (the initial concentration in the box), Thus

13

initially

Q@ = — (19)

For a sustained point source in an infinite medium, in the absence of a

mean current, Sutton (p. 135) gives the formula

Si 20
Ci > kr as

We can apply this for moderate r(a<r<D), provided that an image source
of equal strength is taken adjacent to the actual source at the bottom. In this
case the concentration at moderate distances is given by

k, M

3 i i
Cor De (2)
or in dimensionless form
sel = 6 Bs e (22)
Coli wT I r

3
where Col = M, / 4a as before. The coefficient k represents an effective
diffusion coefficient through the permeable walls, and may be taken as the molecular

diffusivity times the porosity of the walls. If we consider the order of magnitude

of k, as i0°° em“/sec and K_ as lem“/sec then
C, y
1 = pein? & (23)
Crop r

This relation is plotted as curve (3) in Fig. 4 , and as indicated corresponds to the
condition of infinite depth of water.
If D_ is taken finite then the source can be considered as a line source dis-

tributed over a vertical column of depth D when considering the effect at very

oe atlog Henhizened

" mh

aio ane Sy POST ay Re, tes

OF five ayy
pre oe: TRE
4 ry. A i uh f i a hie + a erie rice eit wl Ot 1a

_, mo ey oi bed ‘aie his Saab PE CRS Lara PP i bd Wgues
Un a nial i wry

=) ¥- wetaborn, 2o1 ath: lige

Dl th) tet ecriny ey Ec eeD Soa 4e meer E

, 7 : ae re

iT} }

‘er Psethe ia ste ees yt aS al. : ; Ai © a AML TE
iY eT » AF qi oe i) i. ; Ps ‘ Pr ‘ ONCE a 'b.alh Ws pet
melnuslocns6y 2b nea ARE ie pe on ICE Siento
mynilieisn We avi Sb ‘sented Sw i R ; MEANY ;
; i
} F .
M4 .
aya | SA ES é .
; : :
B. Da) Re
yor rs ee \ F
i owt ~~
t
ti f % PETES
aah 7? GD ** fk
1 '
7 et)
7 oD I v i
\ | iia. é b
x ar : rae ao F i ,
! ety eviai(ne ck & tet Gar eEeOD eh SL Seas ‘es: cee STEED CATHIE
is > ah gest ally Hshtmoocy ate ae dideged pie} Ha Pe Sie Vuk ieee basa
" : ’ ; j corr: a iH oe ) i : a nA} ch ie | ila) os CU ash
ne Ne ; ; i Mar.
1) ‘fF iy ' iy (\ s eat y yt iy +) U

14

large distances (r>D). However, in the case of a line source in the absence
of current, a steady state of concentration is not possible; the diffusive flux
is not sufficiently great at large distances, and the concentration continually
builds up in the presence of a sustained source. The concept of no mean current
at all is quite unrealistic, and as we have seen from the analysis of part I, a
steady state of Cc. is possible in the presence of a sustained source and a
current U _ which leads to a relation of the type C; proportional to x! [2
Using relation (19) we can investigate the question: What order of magnitude
of. M, is required for all packages in the disposal area in order to develop a
gross Q for the area which is equal to the average rate of addition of activity
of a given isotope to the area, assuming that the dispersal is governed by
leaching (rather than by destruction or erosion of the packages) ? In other words,
what is the equilibrium level of activity in all packages in the disposal area con-
sidering a continued supply of packages per year ?
If we consider Q as the average rate of addition of activity for isotope i

to the disposal area, then for all packages in the disposal area

O23 Nile = am Qi (24)
Estimating k, as 10°° cm*/sec as before and taking a as 36cm gives
ME = ee, (25)

where Q is expressed in terms of curies per yearand $$ M, in curies.
Thus if our estimate of k is reasonable, it will take 14 years accumulation
of packages in the area to maintain a steady dispersal equal to the rate of supply,

assuming that leaching governs the dispersal rate. This discloses an important

a0 i Le) uy
I ; his Fe i nv
U i
ian ik tne ay hn
1 : ie 4 ,
i au

, oa aiid Wk nina We a) eon

ae _ re yy

eRe yi rama cline ipa ait Pe gs Ne, ate hain &' i"

gages ” " ae om Vex eM | anys | tit Me poe ‘ysl a ts

Pe uced todd a nseeTy| sit iid

mi it Ww vrehens Ra Sie (IS theca nlp’

: 4 ool epiy atKi s at bi 8s ‘*e
+ i i Gigante winserig ode kr oitinog RE” 2 sal |

a * ms ‘! tiie fanlenyone, bs fy . tek wo nbaol ioithe UW tt

Sisk

my a)
i)

thor Babes ei Keys 6) ib ait aoaeload tn kot Deals ae

: ; ft J yi ,,
vil Krave 4) 1+ Ke oat (ee Oe. MER a, OF SQOIORK AIRE

=

Pm A ir wrote ene Son
fiir Pann Vi tibetirn, 90) 20 ter oo donnvonab et ad mato a
aa : A i m d >

aoe one Jou eta Pen 4 eagnt ey Lo ae cael ce at aioe

. _ ” i . ( t% isd. Ga a,
7 \) aqohoe) all VES 2 peetiGbet: » : VETS. he

‘ pan Taper ctl: tab es peal | weet oes eee

ae

- i (os) Ne : ; i

aid ont Ot y hi et be GYoPad) se bai ta
U «
(1,8)
a, midi 5 gh ‘a res
Scoreesity, ME a, Wis Ley op eae Tea: OFF # coed ‘i
, ri : 4 t:
a) Bat » + nt .f J et tf Teeth lala ,
rs « = 8
- 4 ¢
Lo eles ister i of dns barrel viet Bb ihn "
- ° c
7 4 *

ayy «nies s OATAS Pies «

k ‘i Nome en. ta . va ee vr or
ee aA Ry 4 Oct ‘ie ris se erry Cp iy 4 is eh | at fwiY iy he ’ Ricalhen: Ph i Mi j ie of ; Bont qeanis sole

v) y : ey me iat ATMA ie)

js an), }

Ma . i ri bi
i a

15

point, so far neglected; for isotopes of relatively small half lives (say of the
order of a year or less) , the material deposited 14 years earlier will have
decayed by containment to a very small level. By ignoring the natural decay, it
is obvious that our considerations of the activity in the medium is far over-
estimated.

One final question which might be considered is the following: Suppose a
steady state has been established, with a 14 year accumulation of activity in the
disposal area; then what activity concentrations could be developed in the water
around the source area, if all of the packages are suddenly destroyed by an

unforseen catastrophe? To answer this we may refer to Eq. (17) and use

2M;
G4 = = (26)
4a
Thus for r>D
0.47
C : 2M, (27)
mi 4Dr 2 i
If we take
D = 30 meters
ro IML, = 14 x 100 curies
for ea
and
r = 1 km
then

G . = 85 nopm
mi

= ,0055 uc/kg (28)

+ ee

\ 7 i,
,
! I ; Mi rx AN i } i r
pee WENAS Abela, ee ah a eR,

" ANTE i ty ag

L ae t- Piva

VN SN bread
t 44

i
Bi

(Aad). ei x 8 see

i: 1 Ke r
ni] evea, STS ek yd bala aa tan ie ae AOS RE
a A i , 4 Ag Bie aa iN che and acre
¥ wan

‘ey

Te) rad 7 | 9
wea *
ee eae a bur ete il th 5 ah aoe See

ve L
=z, Oy
= &
cn
'
“
fi t 4 is
*4 m 5
i
Ce Pera :
La.
ie ny id ,
, { an

16

SUMMARY

A number of formulas have been given in the preceding discussion in the
attempt to shed some light on the question of maximum conceivable concentrations
of radioactivity which may result in the vicinity of a low level radioactive disposal
area on the sea bed in relatively shallow water. The distribution at distances well
outside the disposal area is reasonably illustrated by Table I which is based upon
Eq. (27) for a water depth of 30 meters, a very small diffusivity (1 cm/sec)
and a relatively weak current (5 n.mi/day), and applies to the case of Cs 137 at
an estimated supply rate of 100 curies per year. Concentrations for other isotopes
can be estimated by proportion (based upon their rate of supply relative to 100
curies/yr) .

The maximum possible activity concentration in the water within the disposal
area is simply the concentration within any individual package (C5) , considering
that the BacIoee is suddenly destroyed. The peak concentration as a function of
time at the source, in this event, is shown in Fig. 3. The maximum relative
concentration as a function of distance based upon a single source is shown in Fig. 4.
This is pertinent only in consideration of the distribution of concentration within the
disposal area,

An analysis of the rate of leaching of the packages indicates that an accumulation
of the order of 10 to 20 years is required in order to establish an overall leaching
rate which equals the rate of accumulation. This indicates that the natural decay,
which is ignored in the preceding considerations will lead to concentration much less
than the example computations given in Table I, if it is considered that leaching is

the governing factor in regard to the supply of radioactivity to the water,

i f ' ) . ~ )
i eee P ' x \ ry ri y
dW hs Oey SOE Sl AY DNA, At ee

iy AEE ATi NS a

vs cca toda i eee eey ern e aad anges OnE ew
j eT fuer orate, LAH MEAD SHS SRA aE ;
} ; ee :
a) 7 v
Rea a i es era a ee cs ee

LZ)

REFERENCES

Ketchum, B. H. and W. L, Ford, 1952, Rate of Dispersion in the Wake of a

Barge at Sea, Trans. Geophys. Union, 33: 680-684 .

Moon, F. W. Jr., C. L. Bretschneider, and D. W. Hood, 1957, A Method
of Measuring Eddy Diffusion in Coastal Embayments, Inst, of Mar, Sci.

4 (2): 14-21.

Sutton, O. G., 1953, Micrometeorology, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,

New York, 333 pp.

uy 4 i

- ee y iy
i 1h 7 eth
wi

ae CMe,

AWey

the

i
- a
=
y i 4 i
hae ’
Mean if
‘ 1
i
p nth mia tye
-
i a

AMANO CE Ok Veo mn. Bee
Bie

tle a
Se ae

iH

a

ie { A cert
i

CU Nce abet antl dO) Ne

iy

(wind) LOnbo at corse NOECT hibit wil he st vi

ate) Nee ONE EY Pane dy

- APPENDIX V

Coas tal Circulation

i B.H.Ketchum and D,F. Bumpus

APPENDIX V
Coastal Circulation

By B. H. Ketchum and D, F, Bumpus
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole, Massachusetts

The general features of the non-tidal circulation adjacent
to the east coast of the United States are fairly well known and have
been reiterated in the recent NAS-NRC Publication 551. This present
memorandum will consequently be very brief.

Our knowledge of the circulation in these waters results
from the studies of Bigelow, 1927; Redfield and Walford, 1951; Ket-
chum, Redfield and Ayres, 1951; Miller, 1952; Bumpus, 1955 and Day,
in press. These studies were based on the distribution of tempera-
ture and salinity in the sea, direct current measurements at light-
ships, the returns from drift bottles broadcast throughout the area
and more recently the observed drift of telemetering buoys in a limi-
ted area.

In the offings of estuaries we may expect a seaward flow of
river effluent and a landward flow of sea water necessary to maintain
the distribution of salinity in the brackish part of the estuary.
Where there is a vertical density discontinuity, the inflow of sea
water will be at the bottom. At times of vertical wniformity of den-
sity, the inflow of sea water may be horizontally separated from the
outflow and will generally lie on the right side facing the estuary.
During the seasons of the year when there is no pycnocline we might
expect the non-tidal motions at depth to be quite comparable to those
at the surface. During the time when the pycnocline is well developed
the shear may be quite pronounced and motions at depth quite dissimilar

to those at the surface.

=- 2 =

In general the circulation in the Gulf of Maine comprises a
counter clockwise eddy. The drift along the Maine - Massachusetts
coast is southerly, on the order of 2 - 6 miles per day ( - 13 cm/sec).
The southerly part of the circulation, i.e. in Massachusetts Bay is
comprised of two drifts, one anti-clockwise around Cape Cod Bay, and
one across the mouth of Massachusetts Pay toward the outer coast of
Cape Cod and thence southerly. The drift from Georges Bank is generally
west during the spring and summer but more offshore and perhaps even
easterly during the autumn and winter.

South of Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New York the coastal
drift tends to be westerly, 3 - 5 miles per day, (6 - 11 cm/sec) and
from the offing of New Jersey southward to Cape Hatteras the set is
southerly with speeds varying from 5 - 15 miles per day (11 - 32 cm/sec).

From Cape Hatteras to Georgia the surface non-tidal drift
tends northeasterly at speeds of 0.2 to 12 miles per day, (.l to 26 cm/sec)
with the highest concentrations of drift bottle strandings on the southern
side of the Capes. From Georgia to Daytona Beach the set appears to be
southerly and from Daytona Beach south the drift appears to be northerly
(unpublished data).

Redfield and Walford (1951) noted that "wastes likely to be
transported to beaches in the surface layers should be carried at least
10 miles to sea if contamination of beaches is to be avoided". The
percentage frequency of strandings of drift bottles from areas off the
Ue S- coast, Figure 1, indicates the variation in what may be construed
as onshore or offshore areas of drift. The contours extend farthest
offshore in the Gulf of Maine and south of Nantucket. They creep in to-

ward the mouths of the Hudson River, Delaware and Chesapeake Bays. On

Dm se ae) ural) pit) nh setae fe eee silt conde, AT
ripe aetna - ein. we grote Phiah ‘edt, “wxbbe ectiaisalel
+ a) Nea a cats Oe Bg: wart ath no oetsadtave: 2
hs selchipuaiabh AS 4 hat eno tteluas te ae *e hc:
1G Soe aiiy: vt ai btdoipetide BAG BP Lit hae 29/8

a

ded abt suuiogekal to atm ote

ata Fas itow ails

‘ ( any ey eee eee |
Silane Gierisetwurtt PIScd etl. Sebxaiitima. eogods Leste g

ere acmimad mis SeedwiiS aro fod. tennwe f88 anlage acle Si

erent iW Bis, Mamie: BAR ‘pale :
; ee
Peres ois Natl scl) tas eT bol eet ts sirtoonauh “lp Atoll Bi

yoy oe 2 Hime) rlistcey ad ot

; Pi EA ie é ee ‘T 1 Os i Sow whist 4 hie Ty v sf xo gait ot)

eLomaien SE EF) y ta es YL oabewsy aboseh- Thi

f . ; ; ; ; r
— lose\am BS 08 Be) Gteh Nac < bie Te vhyed oped

ots ny ey Ps eT my Fee ae on n. pktam oars Whe
“ih YRIAIGOU 6Gf HO ayn 70s: i 16) a SECM Onoe CF
{ 4, cr 12 7 4 fi ged nt ae re
1 aia Toe thes ee oy, 4 * 3
‘
vine Gros ad Oo eneagee: ORM eit iy i Ve
peta
: pS: A v ‘
ed oo rm! beBy" Gots 2 t : 1 i
;
fehl 24 Salida 60 Ghee PEARL eee LG fe {. woe
" té > nie > “4 earls wie see hia taiscta©
= © | pT p Sey. Ch RS AC he es ue A
a Pane se
en t) 6 t rs ‘ ] ALS OG ret af) ta Sees Se eu ee \
1 4 ve, vy Nera aus
hamtattios ied en. deel 2 QI ROU MRS Aes ye BUA
: , . j eure
hive F r Bo race sith eg cae Pra ra. cee ce x kin?
y wey Aah) BA TIMOUTION Site oS 2b been! St [ in
2 : ; sehe | AG ad iD Sle Bp Ae 4% ; iy
dha qoeae Vaile > eS nai Haw |) 2 Aue lie Seba, ih | iyys HRS 3. n0ne

Suse olfeensawity bad seawelad,. «Sor RR meeern sty 2a) Rear eats, oe

1
Ww
LY

the other hand, on either side of the mouths of these estuaries the
frequency of returns is high. Note also the high percentage returns
from bettles dropped from Georgia southward.
As to bottom water, there are three items which might be
mentioned s
ae There is an area extending from south of Nantucket
Shoals westward to the offing of New York from about 30 fathoms
to 50 fathoms which appears to be somewhat isolated from the
general circulation pattern. Following the vernal development
of the pyenocline this lens of water retains its winter charac-
teristics, remains in the same geographic location and does not
become modified until the autumn overturn. There appears to be
restricted interchange of some of the water seaward with slope
water. In other words the portion of the continental shelf be=
low the pycnocline tends to stagnate for about 6 months of the
yeare
be Our observation posts on lightships reveal a mid-summer
inshore movement of bottom water along the coast from Virginia
to New Jersey and subsequent upwelling, presumably due to off-
shore movement of surface waters due to wind shear. How far in=
shore of the lightships this intrusion occurs we do not know.
They also suggest a downwelling during the coldest parts of
the winter when waters next to the coast chill to low temperatures
and subsequent offshore movement when resulting densities reach
below those of the adjacent offshore waters. This mechanism ap-

pears to occur in areas farthest from river mouths where the

rude req | wot! ot Pius debee oust wt Hate! aces ibe, treats

s
Winey ete, Sat ia)
ay) SR aN ae

Ve aeudrich 9 4 sting ma gotta) oo! Hote" AA ak wrod t

ab bd ‘G3 Hane moe ibe: nei To 8 she Ee abt et eau

i
ft

Pont Ptnteee go a OR eA E SS Ho kziw vensthall

ferent crim hy | eth eRy aii Shi tio sed tery Ave, frp

a ante tot ee a Mein Nhhee he eilel EEN pation
’ dine Me: LRG. PV be. oS Le ate artes athe ALE - Sees
ed et 7 it "eat Bilao RNP MMS Oto bimini wit Liew bedieh

rie is ‘aa ber (tne i) Serie i 3 : to Saneneat baw

tard EC Cael Yi Le pre teers: al editor Reha or

Preah ee Mewar fh airole ic) errapite OF ART EROS gees a

a9; ura bbe a fasive Ter OLA De hi cory 4 ee tse
axtq 4d pert dase ae “nod Yotew molded, to dye
atte od eit Utne 4a lowe Scie ane

hey won” “ree sy es Aas Pant nw pie Loe tS

Sear Fo: oy Si Barn geotens ra aes MR AL a

bo atiay fechlod: ony he a Bub Leama 8) Je5care

Ev tank ps Liat ‘gaia ; oreeat Wait ‘ees ie

“are | ty eet oe & nt etre tay enue Be ania boty sity, “Eds

elt aot crite tevtr ae ‘tenuhien) bane ha
Wh i eee ve b)

oN pee

salinity inshore is highest. ‘his phenomenon has been observed
at Nantucket Shoals where the bottom offshore movement was deduced
to reach 2 miles per day ( cm/sec) and south of Long Island
where chilled coastal water contributed to the offshore lens of
cold watere

ce The pycnocline develops only very weakly in the coastal
areas south of Cape Hatteras, hence allowing for greater vertical

mixing, compared to the pycnocline developed north of Hatteras.

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution B. H. Ketchum
19 March 1958 D. F. Bumpus

heviceto Lscall slat cine

)

ssaytiat cn deity) crit seeded ihe sad, ‘aby 8 oe ee

anes set (sete oan rs wat ‘ew aathes ioe
sid | SP ee ae ob i ite ‘tats ia Babes: ‘halthds

/
Meat

Wht ee oe Uy ie ete Ge

of f vs hae ; i 1h
Sadi Sul Akt Nee Pad Laci wih Lawak Heety Agy re ety, aa
A

BY BO RB se, See sod ne manent a snot a righ Yoerivaen

Sei 45 chro eee bE aneses, aia + herrneptio: ei «ue

WN mh p
“ ne . ¥ = mi ; i Plime
DU Lene eae merge my WA erie HLCOR
ay Shy FY 4
Boor AE, as fale wil
| ?
:
i
A ca
¥ ar
1 2.
i
Ma q
i
i } ‘i’ y
F
hh
ey
: a

Literature Cited

Bigelow, H. B.
"Physical oceanography of the Gulf of Maine”. Bulle

U. Se Bur. Fish. ho, Pt. Il, 1927.

Bumpus, D. F.
"The circulation over the continental shelf south of

Cape Hatteras". Trans. A.G.U. 36 (hk), 1955

Day, C. G.
"Gulf of Maine circulation as deduced from drift

bottles". U.S.F.W.L.S., Fishery Bulletin. In Press

Ketchum, B. H., A. C. Redfield and J. C. Ayres.
"The oceanography of New York beight". Pap. Phy.

Oceanogr. & Meteorology 12 (1), 1951

Miller, A. R.
"A pattern of surface coastal circulation inferred
fron surface salinity - temperature data and drift

bottle recoveries". W.H.O.I. Ref. 52-28, 1952

Redfield, A. C. and L. A. Walford
"A study of the disposal of chemical waste at sea".
Report of the Committee for Investigation of Waste

Disposal. NAS-NRC Publication 201, 1951

Wooster, W. S. and B. H. Ketchum
"Transport and disposal of radioactive elements in

the seal. NAS-NiC Pub #551.

i ' }
i nest a vit
a leah es wii Ly sew i hive Mie ee : 1 es
. y a Vibe 4 ee Pv tt Nite { SPAT PAE
make | ae io frettnn : faye mye
i Ay m7 i ee
fl Hi AR Taian 0
f ;
h iV :
fis, ioe i
PUR shew f
: cy
y i‘ fof u y
rs i va ” é
; Mente sh ot. gwodege
i D : ; wy :
‘ Me or el tee i“ 1) Wee pare
We test to. RI eae ae a Lao teu
wi, z
me. sh 4 mh fs oat Ard ives tie so SU
% 8
" . a fea
ar hhtic ‘4 i wo bn 6
'
a ‘ «
r . thea } "eet 74 oe
=
4 ;
'
4 4 )
> 4
ag © ‘ y if 4 n i +h
i bdo
: : 5 } . ¥ OD
N\
a { : { aki. oot
acl - i440 7 , ’ yas
7 sVen mG) | j ; :
cae 4 ' Ly ‘ 4 feAnnecead
A i A & ap t's
j
me «hh
ye ‘
j be i L ios vere Bh Tee é
4 i iu thin pts Eesha
: Nae ‘ Pia
ha 4
i
. ‘ 4 ¢ be »
1 “ne eae : a L «ie PAL “ ' wi
i
i :
|
: j
Mi ;
{ é
Ta Ly Wea i co te i
i
Nae ; 4p Bike Sno + haat ease i¢ aro 4
i? apueW ‘26 Hotdeg@tesynt at 6 nial aati 4d ee
i
; wwe ) , tae
i Al rear 1 Whi A Oe aT Ae s ae
i
j F
’
> at I in ot Le hits it vai ee
* A ' ( * f

iis! Rata oie a? ae

Rae f 1 eR eT aD ALAR e Gy, Ga Daa Ret” oar Pie

45°

40°

35°

30°

80° 75° 70° 65°

Percentage frequency of stranding on North American shores
of drift bottles launched in adjacent coastal waters. Stip-

pled areas - over 50% returns.

5 j f
ihm dps rt, tg semen re Sip
yA pela a yt

on tae rahe,

i
'
i
J
} i
‘

mete eict | eS Bebe

REE EN, iat Rey gi SC aiodl byatey’

APPENDIX VI
srmissible Sea Water Concentration- Monitoring of Disposal Be
b.. Areas 7 ) a
B.H, Ketchum & W,A, Chipman

APPENDIX V1
PERMISSIBLE SEA WATER CONCENTRATION-MONITORING OF DISPOSAL AREAS

B.H. KETCHUM and W. A. CHIPMAN

In considering permissible seawater concentrations of various
radioisotopes the ultimate criterion is the hazard to man. In the
absence of evidence to the contrary we have assumed that the hazard
to the marine biota is probably no greater than the hazard of an
equivalent body burden of the isotope to man, and some evidence
indicates that the body burden of marine organisms can be greater
than that in man without danger. Presumably therefore water which
would be safe on its radioisotope level for man to drink would
also be safe for fish and other members of the marine biota to
ive) Ln.

The radioisotope hazard to man has been carefully evaluated
in establishing the maximum permissible concentration (MPC) for
drinking water, These values have therefore been used as the
basis for our calculations. This has the additional advantage
that any change in the MPC would automatically produce a com-
parable change in our suggested permissible concentrations for
seawater,

As a first step in the evaluation of the present magnitude
of the problem of low level waste disposal we have compared the
total supply of radioisotopes with the maximum permissible con-
centration for drinking water in order to determine the volume
of water necessary to achieve such a dilution, The results of
this tabulation are given in Table I. The entire amount of
radioisotopes (exclusive of sealed sources) shipped to licencees
east of the Mississippi River plus Texas and Louisiana between
January 1956 and September 1957 have been used as an index of
the rate of supply (AEC, 1957).

The isotope requiring the maximum dilution in Table I is
iodine 131 which would require 3.5 x 10! cubic meters, This
volume would be contained under one nautical square mile of sea
surface area in water that was ten meters deep, Since, however,
iodine-131 has a half life of only eight days it is obvious
that it would be largely decayed before disposal in the sea. For
elements with longer half lives strontium is the most critical
one and would require a diluting volume of 2.) x 10° cubic meters;
a volume which would be contained under a surface area of somewhat
less than 1 of a square mile 10 meters deep.

All of the other radioisotopes listed in Table I would re-
quire far smaller volumes for adequate dilution to achieve the
maximum permissible concentration for drinking water. It
appears, therefore, that the present production of radioisotopes
ag listed in Table I could all be dispersed directly ina small
area of coastal waters with no hazard to marine resources or to
man, Actually, because of other methods of disposal, and of the

it
as
Dat ,
i"
’
ra] m
alk
he

ay

wav

effects of storage in the containers in which they are original-
ly dispensed, only a small portion of this activity is reaching
the sea at present.

Many of these elements will be concentrated by the marine
biota and it is worth considering what effect such accumulation
would have upon the marine biota itself and ultimately upon the
possible hazard to man, In terms of the hazard to the indivi-
dual marine species there is no evidence that concentrations of
elements comparable to the MPC established for drinking water
would have deleterious effects on marine organisms, even if they
lived their sntire lifetime in such concentrations. As indica-
ted above, a very small area of the continental shelf of the
United States appears to be adequate to dilute the radioisotopes
to these concentrations, and it seems highly unlikely that any
species other than sedentary ones which are firmly attached to
the bottom would remain in such an area for more than a small
Eraciwon of there Lite.

In terms of the hazard to man, it is necessary to evaluate
the total potential intake from seafood as a source. It will
be rememhkered that the MPC was derived from the total body
burden on the assumption that an individual would drink about
15 liters of water weekly. The product of 15 x 103 cc and the
MPC (microcuries per cc.) thus is the weekly intake permissible
for the human body. It should furthermore be realized that such
an intake for a period of thirty years is required to develop
the permissible body burden,

In contrast to the drinking of water, man's habits in terms
of the eati of seafoods are extremely variable. According to
Taylor (1951) the average U. S. consumption of seafoods is approxi-
mately 10 pounds per year. Comparable figures for other countries
are France, 203 Great Britain, 8; Japan, 111 pounds per year.

The average consumption of seafood, however, has little signifi-
cance since large proportions of the population live far from

the sea coast and eat little or no fish or other marine products,
When compared to meat consumption as the sources of protein a man
would have to eat approximately four pounds of fish weekly in
order to match the average U. S, protein qonsumption. It has
seemed to us reasonable to take such a value as the extreme case
of an individual subsisting almost entirely on fish as the source
Oit joIPOwEsLia, akin lasts Clhlow.

The permissible seawater concentration (PSC) may be related
to the maximum permissible concentration by the following
equation:

MEG ex sD) =" BSC iq asx

in which D is the amount of water (cc) drunk in a week, f is the
concentration factor by marine organisms, and F is the amount of
seafood (kg x 10-3) consumed per week. The amount of fish con-
sumption in this equation must be expressed in terms of cubic

a al Ty ik of ‘\ i ‘ r P f
itty Ru Ra doi ak A 8g) 2 da, Oe

“git if ety ee

145 - ~
me
+ Wii : y in Fe { os abe ae
‘i bes > 3 ‘ bq
muerte ne
tie EF i |
Lae i ; sf
aye) ie ‘
Pie
.. > :
me ?
’ sy
& i
'
)
’ PhS k bier
'

4 x i if
eto
vy
H
| 3 1 €
: +
i I
Pid
A ? pha
P F o h i
{} :
é » +
= {
tan
iv 4 i - :
; apy LE a
‘ya is a:
z
t
, 4
eat tsihig bat z
ree
oo if A
Oy, 4
) 4
t { , i
L
if
( bi ae '

; : Hy ee y aa wa 148 fw

ye i are ver B a 4 gf ab Rear hie

y 2 Oeil f ve ¥
; PS, ir. ’

uy
woqyueTd UT uoTyerjyueou0s Joz (ssodd UT) uemog » wnyoqoy Aq peqaoded azoqoer unutxey “¢
Sg
I

°9 eTaBE *(1S6T)

"OL ST doesjesyos pus eT[eAey UT 104087

“OdW 65-SS UOdT +

‘uewdtTyg wory sadeqsfo fo senssT4 4jos Joy eqeq °

*soetoeds

°T99eM Po1sUTWeIU0D WOIT peATiop [Le - °yM/Sy $°T go uoty
-dumsuoo pooyees 8 Butumsse ({[) uoTqgenby wouy uoTJer4UeoUOD JoqemM Bos eTqISSTWIeg °

‘lejyeesyog pues eTTeASY Wory (dTeysTy st TeAsyotYM)

*‘seqerqoqIeAUT JO soqedqeqdeA JO SenssTq 4joOs 944 LOJ ssmoqgoesl uoTIeTJUaOU0D sy, °

e 8 @

NAN @D ANA Aad

¢OT-

fo
er
SAND © INAW Woo

BOTS "t

TH
eaen
Sut 4n ta
osd

pO 9°
z-OL°e LT
(Ook
orl Ae) rare
Oi
jee i
,-0U'S

= 0S
g-Ol’e
,7Ol'8
g-01'S
g Olt
a0 /onl
2o0sd

OLS
O'S
ae

p10408J
uot ,erqueou0)

: *suoT JeI4jue0UoD eTqTSssSTuWused wunuTxeul 04 Wey4
S4NTTp 04 peatnber zeqem jo oumtoaA 944 pus sedoqyostotped jo ftddng

(t04emM SUTHUTIp)

Ms KN OSs AMUMNU OY

U
°

0
°

t
(eee eee ecexe)

toi
°
a e

)
(oe) loxe)
AANA AMNAAAAAAHAHeH
AN EV OM AOWMIM—=—+H WN 0c

(2)
eo

o
Ss

oO

a

i
O

i)

oa)
LAM AO LALA LN OU LN
Ost WLAMAHAO

Ct

ag

LOE

seTtano
f{ddng

79 aeddon

$9 UTZ

Se anydtng

Te untpos

cy wntsseqog
65 Wott

TS wntTwWouyy)
of] untorte9
26L wWNTptay
LET untseo

09 4+TB®GQ99
06-69 wWNTFUoLIS
Unt ry tah

TI uoqzeg

Ze snaoydsoug
TET eUuTpoTL

edoq,ostotpey

"I eTaay

a)

mn 3k AR shes Sh
by Ma ee hie
| Sew ree

cy Ae ee
te) eke Oly Bis)

vary.

a hy Me

ae
Ved
oe
ae
‘

ee. Oe

- hl =

centimeters, or for convenience as kilograms x 107? which assumes
a specific gravity of one for the wet weight of fish.

The left-hand side of the above equation indicates the allow-
able total quantity of an element ingested by man in microcuries
per weeks; the right-hand side indicates an identical quantity
accumulated in seafood living in contaminated water, It is known
that the efficiency of the assimilation of elements from solid
material is less than the efficiency of the assimilation from
water, but this effect is neglected in our considerations.

If we assume a fish consumption of 1.5 kilograms per week
the PSC would equal the MPC in the above equation for those ele-
ments having a concentration factor of one, As the concentra-
tion factor in the marine organisms increases it is necessary
to either set lower limits for the PSC or to insure that less
than 1.5 kilo of seafood living in the contaminated water is
caught and eaten by an individual. The PSC for the various
elements are listed in Table I and the diluting volumes have
been recalculated on the basis of these concentrations. Phos-
phorus now turns out to have the greatest required diluting
volume with iodine-131 a close second. Both of these elements
have half lives so short that it is likely that each would be
decayed to 0.1% of the supply before reaching the environment.
It does indicate, however, that assurance should be had that at
least 10 half lives of decay should occur for these elements be-
fore sea disposal, Using the PSC as the basis for required di-
lution, strontium 90 would require a square mile of seawater 10
meters deep, copper about half a square mile, and cesium and iron
less than a tenth of a square mile.

In conclusion it should be re-emphasized that several factors
of safety are inherent in these computations, but it should also
be emphasized that uncertainties exist concerning the concentra-
tion factors and the effects of radioisotopes on the marine biota.
One factor of safety is that we have selected a rate of seafood
consumption which is far greater than the national average but
which is realistic in terms of the quantities eaten by the
Japanese and perhaps by some coastal U. S. communities. An-
other factor of safety is that elements are assimilated less
readily from solid food, such as fish, than they are from
drinking water and we have assumed these rates of assimilation
to be equal. A third and more important factor of safety is that
these calculations assume that all of the fish eaten comes from
the small area of the ocean which is used for the disposal of
these wastes, Still another factor of safety lies in the sim-
plified approach we have taken to compute the diluting volume,

We have assumed that all of the radio elements produced in 18
months at Oak Ridge would be introduced into a single disposal
area simultaneously, an assumption which is obviously falacious.
In any actual waste disposal at sea the rate of supply would be
much slower than this and since currents would be washing past
the location constantly the volume of water available for di-
lution would be enormously greater than the volume which

ae ey

We

Ss Ne

actually exists over the bottom at any given time.

If the quantities of radioisotopes being considered for sea
disposal were sufficient so that the above calculation suggested
a potential hazard it would be worth re-evaluating some of the
assumptions and eliminating some of the excessive factors of
safety which are included inthe calculation. However, this seems
unnecessary at the present time since our calculation shows that,
even under the assumed conditions, which are the worst which could
be postulated, the chances of hazard to human beings are negli-
gible,

Monitoring of Disposal Areas

It is strongly recommended that a continuing system of moni-
toring of the disposal area should be e&Stablished. Each disposal
area selected should be surveyed prior to any disposal operations
to establish the normal condition (except those already in use for
the disposal of radioactive wastes) and should be revisited perio-
dically after disposal operations start. For each area selected,
a nearby "control" area should also be selected so that the normal
fluctuation in the area can be compared with those which occur in
the disposal area itself. Insofar as possible the control area
should be upstream of the disposal area as indicated by the normal
non-tidal drift and should be far enough away from the disposal
area so that oscillating tidal currents could not be expected to
carry contaminated water to a control area during any stage of the
tidal cycle.

One of the important reasons for a monitoring system is that
of public relations - to assure the public that the operation is
in no way creating a hazard to man. An even more important pur-=
pose of the monitoring, however, is to evaluate the recommenda-
tions and conclusions of this committee. Although our conclu-
sions have been based upon the best scientific evidence now
available, the committee is acutely aware of the fact that too
little is known to evaluate many of the variables which we have
had to consider, The committee feels that its recommendations
have been over-conservative in order to provide the maximum
factor of safety against the development of a hazard to man. If
the monitoring system is carefully devised to evaluate the vari-+
ables as well as to describe conditions as they exist at a given
time a much better foundation for later recommendations will be
available, A carefully planned monitoring program will serve
three purposes, that of public relations, the evaluation of the
conclusions and recommendations of this committee, and the
development of a fund of basic information which will be re-
quired for ultimate revision or modification of these recom-
mendations as, if or when the quantities of radioisotopes to be
disposed in the sea increase in the future,

Our conclusions have been based upon assumptions which in-
clude the worst possible combination of circumstances to assure

ray sales),
eo

Pas oh Le

Capen ae.

adequate safeguards. Thus for example we have assumed that the
container will not be adequate and will allow immediate disper-
sion in the water, that all of the radioisotopes produced by

Oak Ridge would be placed in one area in the coastal waters of
the United States, that the currents and dispersion expected in
the area will be the minimum to be expected along the continen-
tal shelf, that all of the seafood eaten by some unidentified
man would come from this single area, and that this unidentified
man would eat unusually large quantities of fish compared to the
national average, enough to obtain all of his protein supply from
seafood, Even by assuming all of the worst possible conditions
it appears certain that there would be no hazard if the total
annual output of radioisotopes by Oak Ridge were disposed and
evenly dispersed in one coastal disposal area one mile square,
It seemed unnecessary at the present time therefore to attempt
to evaluate the numerous factors of safety in our conclusions,
especially since in many cases additional data will be necessary
before final evaluation can be made. As a result of these fac-
tors of safety, however, it seems highly probable to the commit-
tee that the requirements we have established could be relaxed
substantially if it becomes necessary or desirable to dispose of
larger quantities of radioisotopes in the sea.

Because of these factors of safety, however, the committee
is well aware of the difficulties which will be presented in
planning the monitoring program, Since it seems probable that
the isotopes will be released from the containers at a much lower
rate than we have anticipated and since the coastal non-tidal
currents are substantial (as much as 5 miles per day) the de-
tection of radioactivity from the disposed material in the sea-
water will be extremely difficult. It is therefore apparent
that direct counts on the water, or even on crude concentrates,
will be useless, The low level radioactive wastes to be dumped
in the disposal areas are varied in character and their radio-
activity results from an assortment of many different radio-
isotopes. The hazardous nature of the wastes depends on its
radionuclide composition. Consequently, not only need the
total radioactivity of the water be known, but the isotopes con-
tributing the major part of the radioactivity should be identi-
fied. Measurement of radioactivity at low concentrations in
seawater is difficult and identification of the radioactive
components even more difficult. Large volume samples will
have to be processed and analyzed by the best available
techniques. The methods are not specified because it is be-
lieved that they will improve with time. The level of radio-
activity which should be considered adegiate should be comparable
to the levels of strontium measured in Atlantic water by Bowen
and Sugihara (1957) who determined 6 - 12 d/min/100 1. by a
method which had a sensitivity of about 10-11 wc/ce (Bowen,
private communication).

Use of the biological system as a pre-concentrator of radio
elements offers promise of value as a monitoring technique.
Plankton appears to be one of the most sensitive indicators of
radioactivity in the sea (Harley, 1956; Donaldson et al., 19563

yo

eT
a ii

Ce
Pax eeck

! : , . , f if A Wy, pede
‘ ann : Y fe oy 4 14 ‘ TA KY pis “ae
' Dated MOLT RECHT ad : bea eet) ear Ai ee) a a
ey a! j a : \p
y a i i Y iid’s f 1 Ay
J 1 \awy { i i Gn! ey eh : f

=a fs

Seymour, et al., 1957) and the movement of plankton with water
currents is particularly useful in following the movement of
radioactivity in the sea. Laboratory tests employing marine phy-
toplankton have demonstrated the great variety of radioactive
materials accumulated and may provide information allowing quan-
titative estimation of particular radionuclides in the water,

The plankton, however, drift with the water and may not remain
in the contaminated area long enough to accumulate the maximum
possible concentrations of radio elements.

The fact that many bottom dwelling invertebrates are sessile
or have limited migration may prove advantageous since they will
be bathed constantly in the contaminated water. Many of these
concentrate elements of sea water to remarkably high levels. A
species of benthic foraminifera has been shown to concentrate
Zr95 and Rul to a marked degree (Martin, 1957) and bottom
dwelling pelecypods concentrate many of the minor elements, par-
ticularly trace metals, such as Zn% (Chipman et al., in press)
and Co60 (Gong et al., 1956). The calcareous shells of molluscs
and the skeletal structures of fish have been SURE ce tod as a
means of calculating water concentrations of Sr90 (Hiyama, 1957)
ard may be useful for estimation of water concentrations of
other bone-seeking radionuclides. It is anticipated that par-
ticular organisms of a marine environment will be of special
use for such bioassay procedures and exact concentration fac-
tors for many radionuclides are now being investigated.

A number of the radio elements - especially the rare earths
are very surface active and may be expected to adsorb strongly
on silts and clays inthe water and in the bottom sediments, Any
monitoring system should include extensive analyses of the bottom
sediments - especially if a method can be devised for collection
of the upper few centimeters to avoid dilution with old un-
affected sediments.

fe
Saves.

eeu! ee

Sacra
References Cited

Atomic Energy Commission. 1957. A special report on the disposal

of radioactivity into Atlantic Ocean waters. Div. Ract. Dev.

(unpublished - official use only)

Bowen. Ve ty and Do tl Sugihara, 1957/7. Strontium 90) in) North
MEL ARGLO BOSCO Wwe, IeoOGe, Neies Neaclo Seay, Us S, isis
S7 6-580 e

Chipman, Walter A., Theodore R. Rice and Thomas J. Price, 1958.
Uptake and accumulation of radioactive zine by marine
llertecOm, ialelas everel slayeliligalislay, MulGlaepoalog) JplS Ss We SS.

Fish and Wildlife Service. In press.

Donaldson, Lauren R,, Allyn H. Seymour, Edward E, Held, Neal
O. Hines, Frank G, Lowman, Paul R. Olson, and Arthur D.
Welander. 1956. Survey of radioactivity in the sea near
Bikini and Eniwetok Atolls June 11-21, 1956. U.S.A.E.C.
Doc, UWFL-h6, 39 pp.

Gome., Ys Ka 5 We El, Slanjmem, ll. Wo Wemsisi, evel So 1, Colina, wWeiGS.
Uptake of fission products and neutron-induced radionuclides
by the clam, U.S. Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory
Tech, Rept. USNRDL-TR-119, 11 pp.

Harley, John FE, (Editor). 1956. Operation Troll. U. S. A. E,
C. Doc. NYO-),656, SM pp.

Hiyama, Yoshio. 1957. A method of measuring the concentration
of Sr?0 in sea water and its permissible limit. Paper
presented at the Ninth Pacific Science Congress, Bangkok,
Thailand, Nov. 18 - Dec. 9, 1957.

Ketchum, B. H. and V. T, Bowen. 1958. Biological factors determining

the distribution of radioisotopes in the sea. (in press).

Martin, DeCourcey, Jr, 1957. The uptake of radioactive wastes
by benthic organisms. Paper presented at the Ninth Pacific
Science Congress, Bangkok, Thailand, Nov. 18 - Dec. 9, 1957.

Revelle, R. and M, B. Schaeffer. 1957. Considerations concerning
the ocean as a receptacle for artificially radioactive

materials, In: The Effects of Atomic Radiation on Oceanogra-

phy and Fisheries, NAS-=NRC, Special Publication 551, pp. 1-
25.

Seymour, Allyn, H., Edward E, Held, Frank G. Lowman, John k,
Donaldson, and Dorothy J. South. 1957. Survey of radio-
activity in the sea and pelagic marine life west of the
Marshall Islands September 1-20, 1956. U.S.A. H.C.
Doc. UWFL - 17, 57 pp.

sey

Taylor, Harden F, 1951. A survey of marine fisheries of N.
Carolina. U. N. Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 555 pp.

Wooster, Warren S. and Bostwick H. Ketchum, 1957. Transport
and dispersal of radioactive elements in the sea, In:
The Effect of Atomic Radiation on Oceanography and
Fisheries, NAS-NRC Public. No. 551, pp. h3-51.

i
Wig RUB aTA NN TRI lie po Sl Bin od
mn
+ ‘
{ ON Ta
ath
fi ’
“us

on
<
+

b+
*y
7
‘

a3
ee ee ee

=e
|
|

S13aSS3A
TVNOISSV¥990 SAVH SYNVE NO SV3YV Y3SHLO 110

33H ONIHSI4 ST3SS3A LVHL AT3NITINN

LN3S3ud
Al1WNSN S13SS3A‘SQNNOYS Yv1n93ay

S13SS3A 40
SNOILVHYLN39NO9 ‘SGNNOYD YVvINoaY

|
AVM4ASOY OL NOANVO NOSGNH

ST4SS3A NVOIYAWV 4O SV3AYV ONIHSI4

le ——

89 69 {oy a2 a ae

ye

or

|

APPENDIX VIII

Submarine Cable Locations

B,C, Heezen

vt ;
‘ §
J F \
'
; a if
‘i . fi
| y WA i i.
‘ + 6 pect
\ =
if : ,
by » ¥
rte ¥ &y
‘% | k
; \ 5 ti
5% i
‘ o N
beg’
A -

i Ay 02 ay
; rons PP ed ARN devel:

pee ee be Mit 2!

Se Nr rel Ln

SUBMARINE CABLE REPAIRS
NORTH CAROLINA TOY

Hie,

Ae ©

t Ay

i

Wen LA hones Mahe Pye!
. es

Hye.

D,F. Bumpus a d

OYE RE Gears

LS ea ae

APPENDIX IX
DISPOSAL AREAS

D, F. Bumpus and H,. H. Eckles

In the process of suggesting sites for the disposal of low level
radioactive wastes the following have been taken into consideration:
Danger to man and the biota
Nuisance to fishing interests
Tidal and non-tidal circulation
Storms driving material ashore
Submarine cable locations
Navy restricted and danger areas
Public education,

Inasmuch as there are a number of disposal areas presently
available as ''explosives dumping area'' or ''dumping ground (by permit
only)'', some of which have been used heretofore for the disposal of
low level radioactive wastes as well as for certain toxic chemical
wastes, we have included these areas in the list of suggested sites,

We have numbered the sites 1 - 12, Alternate sites have been marked
with the subscript a or b indicating that they might be used as secondary
disposal areas but are more inconvenient to reach than the primary
disposal area,

Most of the dumping areas are large: 10x 10 miles, 10 miles in
diameter, or the like, We have indicated the centers of these areas

with one exception, Additional sites listed below might be two miles in

diameter centered on the positions given, Sites presently listed in

"A special report on disposal of radioactivity into Atlantic Ocean waters

- Past, present, and predicted", U.S.A.E,C, Division of Reactor

Development, November 1957, are marked with an *,

1*

la*

2a

2b

To serve Boston, Massachusetts:

42° 25,5'N 70°35'W 312' 2 miles in diameter, marked ''Foul
Area, Explosives'' presently used by Crossroads Marine
Disposal Company, 22 miles from Boston,
Chart 1207

41° 33'N 65°30'W 1000fm, "Explosives Dumping Area" 10 x 10

miles square, Chart 71

To serve Providence, Rhode Island:

41°19.7'N 71°063'W 48-90' Rocky ledge known as ''Browns
Ledge" 10 miles from Sakonnet, Rhode Island, Chart 1210

41° 14'N 71°25'W 110-126' 2 miles in diameter marked ''Dan-
ger, Unexploded Depth Charges, May 1952", 10 miles
from Pt, Judith, Rhode Island, Chart 1210

40°45'N 70°52'W 32 fm. "Explosives Dumping Area, Disused",
10 x 10 miles square, 45 miles from Sakonnet Point,

Rhode Island, Chart 71,1108

To serve New York - Delaware Bay:

39° 26.7'N 73°56,6'W 80' "Danger Area' 2 miles in diameter

22.5 miles from Atlantic City, Chart 1217

i evi peulnag OO Tamir t.ho PR ae be

nn
if

py =
7 /
ey Yi AvAOM Pi esa]
ee : iS
' ?
ra an f os a", : <4" Gee
WAGhe, = i ' ¥
at
” i an ' 6 rr NG )
1% u eur t ly vz
rE
ay
(
a ay gk
- HS) tee! {
} " =a
¥ '
f { a 4 Ts
iw Sé 4 = ' ;
-7
|
woe
Re
Hye be
i 5 | «
i's —- \ + "I 9
H
» @o1* i ‘
: ch .
; re v = 4 r
exh
is
F 4
2 , rt ,
4

3a*

3b

4a

46%*

38° 30'N 72°06'W 1200-1500 fms, "Explosives Dumping Area"!
10 x 10 miles square, 118 miles 098° T from Five Fathom
Bank Lightship, Chart 1000

38° 05'N 73° 24'W 930-1060 fms, ''Explosives Dumping Area"
10 x 10 miles square, 70 miles 127° T from Five Fathom
Bank Lightship, Chart 1109

To serve Norfolk, Virginia:

36°49'N 75°27'W Wreck 9-1/4 in 11 fm, 37 miles from Little
Creek, Chart 1109

37° 19'N 74° 15'W 500-800fm, "Explosives Dumping Area" 10 x
10 miles square, 73 miles 074° T from Chesapeake Light-
ship, Chart 1109

36° 30'N 74°18'W 1000-1250 fm, "Explosives Dumping Area"'
10 x 10 miles square, 74 miles 113° T from Chesapeake
Lightship, Chart 1109

To serve Morehead City - Beaufort, North Carolina:

34°26'N 76°54'W 77-81'. A'tear up'' area according to
"Report of North Carolina Shrimp Survey", Institute of
Fisheries Research University North Carolina, January

1951, 22 miles from Morehead City, Chart 1234

i

pale | ERS HC Yad’ A ere

ee ae ee

}
: ' 2 \ es U oy |
4 nm
- qi A 5 ‘ Lo |
; aii4.2-: ei ameter 3 hi
uy r .
- ih
>
a 1
z ’
mt ee "7
= od Pay
ao ew r UK
i
bea cE oh | uy
pet ham | » > 4
: 7
1 i a
1"
; , fi
a A atin te |
- =
ie 1 FApeqerane’
at ‘
Ro Pee Polit elses ited as
J pe a
at
fi 4 . ‘ : §
si hes o erie fal y
'
7 Sl Seti eye
1 ~
¢ dia yee wee am 2. ¥
’ ’ ~ »
_* Bee, , s
s 4
i

6a

6b

Ta

9a

To serve Savannah Area:

32°20'N 79°55'W 10fm, "Dumping Ground (by permit only)!''
8.5 miles diameter, 20 miles 136° T from mouth of
North Edisto R, Chart 1111

32°00'N 80°30'W 60' A poor bottom regards fishing. 18 miles
from Ft, Sureven, Chart 1240

32° 15'N 78°40'W 20 fm, "Explosives Dumping Area", 10 miles
diameter, 70 miles from Charleston, South Carolina,

Chart 1111

To serve Jacksonville, Florida:

30° 33'N 81°09,2'W 67-70' "Wreck, 42' Reported'', 18 miles
from Mayport, Chart 1243
30° 37'N 79°53'W 300 fm, "Explosives Dumping Area, Disused'"'

83 miles from Mayport, Chart 1111

To serve the Florida peninsula:

26°05,5'N 80°02.5'W 600 fms. 2 miles East of Port Everglades

Sea Buoy, Chart 1248

To serve Pensacola - Mobile Bay:

29°48'N 87° 33'W 23 fm. "Dumping Ground" 35 miles from
Pensacola, Chart 1115
29°48'N 87° 10'W 100fm, Rough ground not suitable for trawl-

ing, 34 miles from Pensacola, Chart 1115

ys

ree
1
j aye
& oF Af
orn ae!
{ +e y dys
4 jt , ” te a
i
Dy
an i
om: ty Ente Oe at
a » A
j
iy 8
i
;
ia
ty
‘ \
}
) Dat |

x

ats AE

9b

10

10a

10b

11

1lb

lle

29°22'N 87° 15'W 300fm, ''Explosives Dumping Area, Disused'!

10 x 10 miles square, Chart 1115

To serve New Orleans, Louisiana:

28° 40'N 89°51'W 100 fm, Rough ground, not suitable for trawl-
ing, 26 miles from Southwest Pass, Chart 1116

28° 30'N 89° 10'W 300fm, "Explosives Dumping Area, Disused'"'
10 x 10 miles square, 30 miles from South Pass,
Chart 1115

28° 25'N 88°55'W 600 fm, ''Explosives Dumping Area" 10 x 10

miles square, 36 miles from South Pass, Chart 1115

To serve Galveston, Texas:

29° 00'N 94° 35'W 9fm, Southernmost corner of a 5.5 x 11 mile
rectangle, ''Dumping Ground (by permit only)'"'.
21 miles from Galveston Entrance, Chart 1116

29° 22'N 93°40'W 7 fm, Rectangular 4 x 9 miles ''Dumping
Ground (by permit only)'' 19 miles from Sabine Pass,
Chart 1116

27° 40'N 93°30'W 250fm, "Explosives Dumping Area, Disused''
10 x 10 miles square, 100 miles 175° T from Galveston

Entrance, Chart 1116

han) qe ame) ate

“a ot at
here Ete) w ees yee: gait ”

irs a Me ho mis
sales =e ae

‘weowe “FO iy eee ne bawexs Nigas ‘fi nt
Bbit? eigen
‘ G i ss a a a es . ; ‘
A end, af bil ve 6 “4 a

Gt eh Meas kee .

a =. 2ttin

‘
'
on |
4
pIrgey

4 *
; , i ie :

P

fo) ‘ . ,
t

, ] ' wes

To serve Corpus Christi, Texas:
12a 27° 15'N 96°00'W 250fm, "Explosives Dumping Area, Disused"
10 x 10 miles square, 65 miles 122° T from Aransas

Pass, Chart 1117

SSLSVM SAILOVOIGVY TSA371 MOT YOS

SV3SYV IWSOdSIG G3SLSSSNNS 4O LYVHD X3QNI

06 S6

: °
wo
N

a os a co
re)
ro)

————— oat

[ams

°

wo
mM

I

——

Ov

Sb

onl
oes Merqun 6 Dicippeideig,! ey eg wb ie:

(
F
, § ;
2 i ’
at i )
: '
; i ah
Vi i}
i 1
; 1 7 l ‘ } oy " ahd
both ;
} i
n m7
§ F
ral ;
’
A
H nf }
P
| ar ‘
i if
!
; }
;
i — | ca z
{
e, H
A .
r ‘,
‘ y
} te Mm
: i‘!
; {
: ,
ae |
{ ‘
f
Ca ae
a a
; ale
t q , ¥
' t rapt
; % iy
i : 7 :
’ ; ' 7
: i
| }
7
4 ™Y
y .
1 ay,
f My ale
a
fe
)
\
f
hi .
»
Samant Ne hearer te ein raved) Fan Ken 7 if Se EM a 19 hall
y , i y
i t
‘ ] . t
j
AR
ve

APPENDIX X

Influence of Packaging on Rate of Dispersion of Radioactivity Disposed
in the Sea

Arnold Joseph

voy,

an

fame BOP BOBS 1 SS

is KS RIS SOR

son Seal

cha Reha

aaj eas ssid ee Maa 3

APPENDIX X

Influences of Packaging on Rate of Dispersion
of Radioactivity Disposed in the Sea

Arnold Joseph

Release Rate of Radioactivity from Packages

The objective is to state as quantitatively as possible how
much and over what period of time radioactivity within a sea dis-
posal package can be expected to be released into a sea water
environment.

Packages of radioactive wastes disposed in the sea are

usually made up of 18 gauge 55 gallon drums, concrete and the waste

materials. The wastes may be either intermixed with the concrete

or surrounded by the concrete in the 55 gallondrum. The drum

itself is likely to be second hand and perhaps reconditioned(repainted).

Corrosion of Steel by Sea Water

Reference: Uhlig, ''Corrosion Handbook", John Wiley & Sons
(1948), pp 383-391. 'In spite of wide variations in temperature,
salinity and marine organism growth from place to place,
there are surprisingly small differences in the corrosion

of common metals and alloys when they are exposed to corrosion

by sea water at different points throughout the world...
Illustrative data for steel and iron... show a surprising

Ke St Pa
i AG = A BER Apaa O al! i id ay in 7 f i a he i
ri by iy
f Mies i ay

hi | Rese iy. vip
i ge hic ‘ ane) or Ge Ay AM are’

f ; A 7 ! 7 Wie
Ce eee Pitan! 2 PRONE ee ho) Mae ae

i

Higa ek ey) .: ot eee aN prensa i . ‘ [ Nf '

7 Lt ye | %
‘4 f st
j
a i } ; =
ay) ; myo +h
thoy! : ' raft! ' Py sid Par 1 Res
1 ‘4 , : i a
< }
Bey te AN
Gan 4 ; ne ven i ne eae | aah areca :
= OF TA evar Py wee Ce ee ee i bees eae ee OP Or RE ePOe eae
q hi pT } ;
re it I 4 Fl ‘
at 2S, ae + ih pe : > ay : pyr ae eh. Cay ALBAN AYER 122
Be isqapat Ds ‘circ | 3) ph. att Me: os +1) s s
J ‘4 x d 7

j Leip pattie fre ey is Wa arig ei teas |

=

ras ‘ i), bea ARTCC an

Va WF). f } 4 i ROM at Asus
' bi 1
<ice ) x
t ee at
aa 9 ad i Liaw iat hae tie > fide x Hi
re , i a We Gi 7) i
. " the m , exit Di?
Rey re tix Yay «> hie?
‘ ‘ae. et i OA PE ‘ iy >
A ; i
$ ‘ > a f HUET try Ty | ‘ NGO Bons his
4 aes ae Wet ta
EAE ee il ope Hen 88 ie, A Daa A ne a A ed ae
i ' j Oy Se AD! Seay gD LS a a aa ees i
‘ } t $ Hy Fe A POS teh ty Maer hire ele ae 1 | iy
A : hints) Kyat atte, a ed SL A oe eee qth “it ae
ioe } ie, ; ; a Van
; 14 Paw ly en ys ; Lrg ine veld. 4 ¥ ed Fae CEE ie Ae bh \

uniformity of rates of attack for specimens exposed under

conditions of continuous immersion.... The spread is

between 0.001 and 0.0077 ipy (inches penetration per year)

with an average of 0.0043. ...Fora rough estimate in

the absence of data applying to a particular locality or

condition of exposure, it would be reasonable to use a

figure of about 0.005 ipy, or about 25 mdd (milligrams

per square decimeter per day), for the expected average

rate of corrosion of steel or iron continuously immersed

in sea water under natural conditions...."'

With this average corrosion rate, i.e. 0.005 ipy, one can calcu-
late roughly that the drum would lose its integrity in about 9.5 or 10
years (0.0478 + 0.005). However, this calculation may not be too
important because not all packages have welded and sealed tops and
bottoms. In some cases, the drums may have open tops and the
concrete would be exposed at the time it is immersed.
Leaching of Radioactivity from Concrete

In an experiment performed by Vitro Corporation of America it
was determined that about 4.8% of the total MFP activity (added as
the liquid component in a mortar mixture) was leached out ina
period of 15 days.

In similar experiments performed by another AEC contractor,
small mortar cylinders (approximately 1 inch diameter x 2 inches
high) spiked with small amounts of MFP activity were leached in 2

liters of tap water. These experiments indicated that about 2% of

the activity was leached out in about 40 days. About 5% of the calcium

he! 70) 7

i i
eta a
ea’ A
D) i
i
hi :
s
ay
ee
iy
’ i
«
t
i i i
eee ;
ie ae 24
- bay & io iw
tae Soha AAS APES ie
~/
vy
rt
a

content was leached in approximately 20 days; this Ca leach level
was reached in about 10 days.
Erosion Rate of Concrete

The objective is to state quantitatively, if possible, how long a
concrete parcel will remain integral when immersed in a sea water

environment.

Reference: Kleinlogel, 'Influences on Concrete", F. Ungar
Co. (1950). 'Sea Water. The free lime in concrete has
a tendency to react chemically as long as it is not attached
to another substance. It combines with the CO, to form
CaCO, which forms a protective crust on the surface.
When sea water has access through pores or cracks to
the inside of the concrete, it dissolves the gypsum and
the aluminates as well as the lime. These salts combine
with a large quantity of the water of crystallization to
form a double salt (Ca-Al-SO4) which has a high pressure
of crystallization, expands, cracks, destroys the struc-
ture of the concrete and transforms it into a soft mass.
"In time the lime in the concrete is absorbed by the
MgCl probably by forming CaCl, which is soluble in water.
The lime is then replaced by magnesia. Consequently, the
concrete becomes porous and the sea water can penetrate
ric Mt