Click for next page ( 17


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 16
After release to the sea, following intentional introduction of liquid wastes or after rupture of a canister, the concentration of the waste will be continually diminished by dilution brought about by the natural turbulent mixing processes that occur in the sea, and the mix- ture of waste and sea water will be moved from the disposal site by ocean currents. An evaluation of the extent of dilution together with processes that might combine to return the wastes to man are discussed below. TRANSPORT AND DISPERSION The movement of a contaminant from the disposal area and its dilution with sea water will be controlled by circulation in and adjacent to the disposal site and the natural turbulent mixing processes in the sea. Obviously, the bottom water circulation in the immediate area of the disposal site will control the initial movements of the soluble and finely divided waste as it diffuses from the ruptured canister. Movement of Bottom Sediment The mechanisms and patterns of bottom sediment transportation on continental shelves are poorly understood. The general circulation of the near-bottom water does not wholly control the movements of bottom sediments since tides, waves, storm surges and tsunami impose controls which may in fact outweigh in importance the average circu- lation of near-bottom water. Important in such considerations is the recent conclusion independently proposed by several groups studying the sediment budget of North Sea beaches that up to half the sediments contributed to certain advancing beaches has been derived off shore from the floor of the North Sea. The possibility thus exists that detri- tal waste may reach adjacent beaches in undesirable quantities. The base of effective wave action has been variously estimated at 30 feet to 900 feet. The discovery of strong scour on seamounts and on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge to depths of 2000 fathoms has been interpreted as evidence that there is no effective wave base. On the other hand, most geologists believe that really intense wave action is limited to the upper 30 to 100 feet of the ocean. Because movement of bottom mate- rials can be quite independent of the average water circulation since it partly depends on wave action and not wholly on water transport, it must be considered separately. Before extensive inshore dumping is commenced, it would seem desirable to dump harmless trace material and observe from what distances appreciable material reaches the ad- jacent beaches. Near-bottom Water Circulation Sub-surface circulation has not been studied with sufficient detail to provide a basis for reliable prediction of the direction and speed of transport at all seasons of the year in any location that might be chosen for a disposal area. Evaluation of bottom circulation must be inferred from observations of salinity and temperature distributions, and 16

OCR for page 16
measurements of surface drift, the latter largely from drift bottle ex- periments. A few direct measurements of bottom currents have been made from lightships. Our knowledge of bottom water circulation along the Atlantic Coast may best be summarized by the following four items: a. 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 circu- lation pattern. Following the vernal development of the pycnocline this lens of water retains its winter characteristics, remains in the same geographic location and does not become modified until the autumn over- turn. There appears to be restricted interchange of some of the water seaward with slope water. In other words this portion of the continental shelf below the pycnocline tends to stagnate for about six months of the year. b. 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 offshore movement of surface waters due to wind shear. How far inshore from the light- ships this intrusion occurs we do not know. The observations 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 densi- ties reach below those of the adjacent offshore waters. This mechanism appears to occur in areas farthest from river mouths where the salinity inshore is highest. This phenomenon has been observed at Nantucket Shoals -where the bottom offshore movement was deduced to reach 2 miles per day (4 cm/sec) and south of Long Island where chilled coastal water contributed to the offshore lens of cold water. c. The pycnocline develops only very weakly in the coastal areas south of Cape Hatteras, allowing greater vertical mixing here than to the north where the pyncnocline is better developed. d. Bottom flow in the areas seaward from the mouths of estuaries can be expected to be shoreward, with intensification of shore- ward movement during seasons in which the land drainage into the estu- ary is at a maximum. Surface circulation. The movement of surface waters, summarized below, will be im- portant to the distribution of contaminant after diffusion and transport from the bottom have brought the contaminant into the surface waters. a. At the seaward end of all coastal estuaries the surface flow can be expected to be seaward with a tendency toward southerly flow along the coast adjacent to the estuary. 17

OCR for page 16
b. In general the circulation in the Gulf of Maine comprises a counterclockwise eddy. The drift along the Maine-Massachusetts coast is southerly, on the order of 2-6 miles per day (4-13 cm/sec). The southerly part of the circulation, in Massachusetts Bay, is com- prised of two drifts, one counterclockwise around Cape Cod Bay, and one across the mouth of Massachusetts Bay toward the outer coast of Cape Cod and thence southerly. The drift from Georges Bank is gener- ally west during the spring and summer but more offshore and perhaps even easterly during the autumn and winter. c. 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 3-15 miles per day (6-32 cm/sec). d. From Cape Hatteras to Georgia the surface non-tidal drift tends northeasterly at speeds of 0.2 to 12 miles per day, (.4 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). e. Redfield and Walford (11) 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 U.S. coast, figure 2, indicates the variation in what may be construed as onshore or offshore areas of drift. The contours extend farthest off- shore in the Gulf of Maine and south of Nantucket. They bend in towards the mouths of the Hudson River, Delaware and Chesapeake Bays. On the other hand, on either side of the mouths of these estuaries the fre- quency of returns is high. Note also the high percentage of returns from bottles dropped from Georgia southward. Diffusion Processes In addition to the gross transportation of contaminants by perma- nent and semi-permanent ocean currents, the mechanism by which a contaminant will move from the bottom if current velocities are zero at the water-bottom interface is obviously important. This mechanism is diffusion controlled. Similarly, once the contaminant is contained in water its dispersion and subsequent dilution will also be controlled by turbulent diffusion processes. So far as can be discovered, there are no direct measurements of diffusion-controlled processes within the areas of interest that can be used to evaluate the relative importance of these mechanisms to the movement of the contaminants. It is possible, how- ever, to treat the problem theoretically, by imposing a number of sim- plifying assumptions which give a result that is not an accurate descrip- tion of the diffusion process, but does give limiting values of the concentration of contaminant in the sea. Reid (12) has examined several cases in which the following assumptions were made: 18

OCR for page 16
DRIFT BOTTLE RETURNS CONTOURS ARC PERCENTAGE OF BOTTLES RELEASED IN THE CONTOUR AREAS THAT ARE PICKED UP ON ADJACENT COASTS STIPPLED AREAS-OVER SO*/. RETURNS 19

OCR for page 16
a. The radioactivity in sea water is not depleted by adsorp- tion by the bottom solids, or by the uptake of marine organisms. b. Natural radioactive decay has been neglected. c. The diffusion process is considered to be Fickian. d. The ocean is considered to be of uniform depth. The assumption of Fickian diffusion implies that the dispersion of a contaminant at distances from the source is much slower than is known to occur. The assumptions of no adsorption by bottom solids and marine organisms, and no radioactive decay obviously lead to an overestimate of the concentration of contaminant. Several cases are considered, corresponding to possible conditions of release of the contaminant to the sea. These are summarized below. Sustained Gross Source. This case is analogous to the continued release of a contaminant, at a known rate, as from the end of a pipe, or the diffusion of contaminant from ruptured canisters, under a steady state condition of supply and rupturing of canisters. Considering a bottom disposal area of dimension L x L, over which the water depth is D, with a uniform current of speed U parallel to the coast, and a diffusivity coefficient K, the maximum concentration of contaminant Cm along the axis of the current at distance x from the source, (when x is large compared with L) for a rate of supply Q, is given by: (D n The maximum concentration at various distances as evaluated from equation (1) are listed in Table IV for the following conditions: Rate of supply Q = 100 curies per year (274 me/day) Depth of water D = 30 meters (90 feet) Diffusivity coefficient K= 1 cm2/sec Current velocity U - 10 cm/sec (approx. 5 n.mi/day) 20

OCR for page 16
TABLE IV MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION Cm, AT DISTANCES X FROM SUSTAINED GROSS SOURCE WITH RATE OF SUPPLY 100 CURIES PER YEAR x (Km) C (nc/ml) 1 2 x 10-7 2 1.6 xlO-7 4 1 x 10-7 10 7 x 10-8 20 5 x 10"8 40 3 x 1 OCR for page 16
(K=lcm2/sec, V* APPROX. 50GAL OR 190 LITERS) FIGURE 3 DIFFUSIVE DECAY OF CONCENTRATION AT SOURCE SOURCE ON BOTTOM 22

OCR for page 16
In addition to the time-concentration relationship, it is of interest to know the effect of distance from disposal site on the concentration for point sources. The maximum relative concentration (C/Co) as a function of distance from the site is shown for three cases in figure 4. Curve 1 assumes infinite depth of water, curve 2 assumes that the ratio of water depth to canister size is 100, and curve 3 assumes infinite depth and that all of the waste is not immediately available but diffuses from the ruptured canister at a uniform rate under the conditions that the diffusion coefficient through the ruptured canister is 10"" that of the diffusivity in the water. The latter case is discussed below. Continuous Source at Uniform Leaching Rate. This case treats the situation analogous to the diffusion of contaminant from the concrete that remains after the steel casing has corroded and affords no further containment. In the development of this case, it has been assumed that the amount of contaminant diffusing through the permeable concrete walls is directly proportional to the surface area of the container, di- rectly proportional to the difference in concentrations inside and imme- diately outside the container, and inversely proportional to the thickness RELATIVE OSTANCE \ 2 1 \ \ V (Quo, C/C, to, . . Instantontaa Boi Sourer on Bottom, D**> V \ \ \\ I,atmttnaa -Boi'Sarct a,auKm,.D/,,100 ^ \ / \ \/ \ \. Q)C/C0 for Coatiauom -Boi- 5 Sarct of inform itothing /fart, D-tD, k/K-tG* \ / \> \ : \^ !~ «• DISTANCES FOR V=49od \ \ N. FIGURE 4 RELATIVE CONCENTRATION VERSUS DISTANCE FROM SOURCE

OCR for page 16
of the walls. The effective diffusion coefficient through the walls is taken as the molecular diffusivity times the porosity of the walls, and in numerical computations is assumed to be 10"6 cm2/sec. The relative concentration-distance relationship is shown by curve 3 in figure 4. Reid further shows that under the condition of continual supply of canisters to a disposal area and given the assumptions noted above, the time required to reach a steady state between rate of disposal and leach- ing rate will be fourteen years. That is, only after fourteen years will the quantity of contaminant released to the water be equal to the rate at which contaminant is deposited on the bottom in canisters. If the life of the steel canister is ten years, as noted previously, the time to reach steady state would then be an additional ten years, or a total of twenty- four years. SORPTION AND EXCHANGE Coastal waters in general contain relatively large quantities of suspended solids. The solids are in part living organic materials, the plankton, and in part suspended, inanimate, organic and inorganic solids. A portion of the latter are materials being carried seaward by land drainage sources and will ultimately become bottom deposits. Another portion, that usually near the ocean bottom, is periodically brought into suspension by tidal action and storm-generated turbulence. All these materials including the "bottom" have a measurable-tendency to adsorb (remove from solution) and to hold substances dissolved in the water. The sorptive properties of these solids are extremely variable. Neglecting for the moment uptake by marine organisms, the quantity of material adsorbed by a given weight of suspended inorganic solids will depend upon the mineral composition of the solids, the composition of the solution in which the solids are suspended, and the past history of the solids. All of these factors are nearly impossible to evaluate quan- titatively for conditions likely to be found in nature. Although impossible to evaluate quantitatively, it seems certain that sorption processes will play a major role in controlling the dis- persal of radioactive wastes once they are free of the canister. This conclusion is based upon the results of a few laboratory studies, in ad- dition to qualitative field observations made during bomb tests and by the British at their disposal operation in the Irish Sea. The details are given in NAS-NRC publication 551, chapter 6 (5), and are summarized below: 1. Partial removal of mixed fission products from solution was achieved by centrifugal separation of naturally occurring solids from a contaminated solution. 2. The sorption of phosphate, iodide, iron III, strontium, sulphate, and copper II onto Chesapeake Bay sediments has been measured under a variety of environmental conditions. With the exception of iodide, ap- preciable removal from solution by the solids was observed under all conditions. 24

OCR for page 16
3. Sorption onto selected clay minerals has been studied and is recommended as a means of solution decontamination, under certain conditions. 4. The differences in composition between marine sediments and the solids carried to sea by rivers is attributed to exchange and sorp- tion reactions between the solids and dissolved substances during sedi- mentation. 5. The sediments in the area around the end of the discharge line from the British Atomic Energy Authority processing plant at Windscale on the shore of the Irish Sea, show a relatively large accumulation of radioactive substances. Although some of this information is quantitative it cannot be ap- plied directly to the dispersal problem we are considering. Neverthe- less, since radioactive waste components and naturally occurring sus- pended and deposited solids generally exhibit exchange and sorption reactions; and since the disposal canisters will be partially or perhaps completely buried in bottom deposits during the time the waste com- ponents are escaping from them, it seems inevitable that these reac- tions will have a major influence in controlling the rate of dispersal and ultimate distribution of the wastes. These sorption and exchange reactions appear to us to be a safety factor (an exception is noted below) in disposal problems. So far as uptake by permanent bottom deposits are concerned the effect is that of achieving additional containment time, thus providing for greater radio- active decay than would be achieved by containment only in the canister. There is at least one situation in which sorption onto bottom de- posits may represent the development of a possibly hazardous situation. This is the situation in which bottom areas adjacent to a disposal site are the source of marine food products such as oysters, clams, mus- sels, etc. In this case accumulation of wastes on the bottom would pro- vide for a greater level of contamination of the food product than would occur in the absence of sorption and exchange with the bottom. Our recommendation of a complete survey of a proposed inshore disposal area prior to the start of disposal operation will help preclude the de- velopment of such a hazard. Because we are unable to make a quantitative estimate of the magnitude of uptake on suspended and deposited solids, we have neg- lected this factor in our evaluation of the quantities of wastes likely to be found in the water and in marine food products for various rates of disposal of radioactive wastes. We believe that by neglecting this factor our recommendations concerning disposal rates include a safety factor of at least 10, and possibly more. 25

OCR for page 16
PERMISSIBLE CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIOISOTOPES IN SEA WATER AND UPTAKE BY MARINE ORGANISMS We have noted previously that we consider the return of radio- active wastes to man in the form of contaminated marine food products to be the most serious potential hazard that might be created by the use of near-shore areas as disposal sites. The ability of aquatic organisms to concentrate certain substances within themselves at higher levels than exists in their environment is well known. From earlier studies involving the concentration of the major nutrients, carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus by phytoplankton and the aquatic plants, and the passage of these materials from plants to animals through successive prey - predator steps, we have a generalized picture of the nutrient cycles in which many kinds of aquatic organisms are in- volved. Following these early studies with the major nutrients, several of the trace metals that appear as minor but essential nutrients were studied, and recently the behavior of radioisotopes of several biologi- cally important elements has become known. This information was discussed in detail in NAS-NRC publication 551, chapters 7, 8, and 9 (5). Using this information, plus the results of studies completed since 1957, we can estimate the quantities of many radionuclides that will be contained within a variety of aquatic organisms when their environment contains stated concentration of the same nuclides. We have combined this information regarding the probable quan- tities of radionuclides in commercially landed fish with figures for max- imum permissible concentrations in drinking water, to obtain the quan- tity of radionuclides that will be returned to man in marine food pro- ducts, as follows: 1. The MPC values (3) are based upon acquiring a permissible body burden of a given radionuclide, below which no observable biolog- ical damage will occur, by drinking approximately 15,000 milliliters (15 liters) of water per week, at MPC levels, for 30 years. Thus, the MPC values permit the calculation of a permissible weekly intake for each of the nuclides listed. For example, the MPC value for Sr9° is 8 x 10"7 nc/ml. We calculate the permissible weekly intake of Sr90 to be 1.2 x 10"2 nc. 2. Using the permissible weekly intake as calculated above and figures for the quantity of fish eaten per person per week, it should be possible to compute the maximum permissible concentration of any nuclide in fish. In contrast to the drinking of water, man's seafood eating habits are extremely variable. According to Taylor (13) the average U.S. con- sumption of seafood is approximately 10 pounds per year. Comparable figures for other countries are France, 20; Great Britain, 48; Japan, 111 pounds per year. The average consumption of seafood, however, has little significance since large proportions of the population live far from the sea coast and eat little or no fish or other marine products. 26

OCR for page 16
SUBMARINE CABLES ATLANTIC AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO COASTS CAPE HATTERAS TO CUBA FIG. 5 30° 31

OCR for page 16
4S• 40* 3V 75' SUBMARINE CABLES ATLANTIC COAST CAPE HATTERA4 TO NOVA SCOTIA FIG. 6 70* The pre-use survey should be designed to provide the following information: (1) Detailed circulation, including seasonal variations, in and adjacent to the disposal area, conducted so as to permit an evaluation of the dilution afforded by turbulent mixing within the area and transport from the area by ocean currents. (2) Measurement of the seasonal variations in the kind and quan- tities of aquatic organisms within and adjacent to a disposal area, es- pecially organisms attached to or living in the bottom. These may con- centrate or move components, of the wastes and so act first as a con- tainment element and second as a convenient indicator, during subsequent monitoring operations, of the spread of activity throughout the disposal area and of possible "leaking" out of the disposal area. 32

OCR for page 16
(3) Analysis of bottom sediments for mineral types, especially for components known to have high absorptive capacities, e.g. the clays. (4) Analysis of bottom organisms and bottom deposits for exist- ing radioactivity. This will be low prior to disposal, being primarily from natural activities and fall-out. The analysis should be conducted so as to distinguish between naturally occurring K40 and C14 and man- made isotopes, especially Sr90. (5) The existence of commercial and sports fishing activities within and adjacent to the selected area, determined by reference to U. S. Fish and Wildlife records and state and local authorities. Monitoring of a disposal area at intervals following the start of disposal operations will be essential to the safe and efficient use of an area. Monitoring procedures should include the collection of both bottom living organisms and bottom sediments, and analysis of each for radioactivity. The frequency of sampling and the methods of analysis should be such that estimates of the following can be made: (1) the containment provided by disposal canisters; (2) the distribution of waste components in the biota and the bottom sediments; (3) the existence of a steady state involving disposal rate and dis- tribution within the disposal area. DISPOSAL AREAS Suggested disposal areas are shown in figure 7, and their exact location listed in Table VI. Inasmuch as there are a number of disposal areas presently available, designated as "explosives dumping area" or "dumping ground (by permit only)", some of which have been used heretofore for the dis- posal of low level radioactive wastes as well as for certain toxic chem- ical wastes, we have included these areas in the list of suggested sites. We have numbered the sites 1 to 12. Alternative 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 dis- posal area. Most of the dumping areas are large: 10 x 10 miles, 10 miles in diameter, or the like. We have indicated the centers of these areas, with one exception. Additional sites listed might be two miles in diam- eter 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.G. Division of Reactor Development, November 1957, are marked with an *. 33

OCR for page 16
34

OCR for page 16
TABLE VI LOCATION OF SUGGESTED DISPOSAL AREAS To serve Boston, Mossachusetts: 1* 42°25.5'N 70°35'W 312 ft. 2 miles in diameter, marked °Foul Area, Explosives" presently used by Crossroads Marine Disposal Company, 22 miles from Boston, Chart 1207. la* 41°33'N 65°30'W 6000ft. "Explosives Dumping Area" 10 x 10 miles square, Chart 71. To serve Providence, Rhode Island: Just subsequent to the first printing of this report locations 2 and 2a (41°19.7'N 71°63'W and 41°14'N 71°25'W respectively) were replaced by 2c and 2d (41°13'N 70°49'W, 62 ft.. Southern half of prohibited area around "No man•s land,* south of Martha•s Vineyard, Mass. Chart 1210; and 42°13'N 69°48'W, 780 ft., 10 x 10 miles square, 16 miles northeast of Cape Cod Light, Mass., Chart 71) 2b 40°45'N 70°52'W 202 ft. "Explosives Dumping Area, Disused". 10 x 10 miles square, 45 miles from Sakonnet Point, Rhode Island, Chart 71,1108. To serve New York - Delaware Boy: 3 39°26.7'N 73°56.6'W 80 ft. "Danger Area" 2 miles in diameter 22.5 miles from Atlantic City, Chart 1217. 3a* 38°30'N 72°06'W 7200-9000 ft. "Explosives Dumping Area" 10 x 10 miles square, 118 miles 098°T from Five Fathom Bank Lightship, Chart 1000. 3b 38°05'N 73°24'W 5580-6360 ft. "Explosives Dumping Area" 10 x 10 miles square, 70 miles 127°T from Five Fathom Bank Lightship, Chart 1109. To serve Norfolk, Virginia: 4 36°49'N 75°27'W Wreck 9-1/4 in 66 ft. 37 miles from Little Creek, Chart 1109. 4a 37°19'N 74°15'W 3000-4800 ft. "Explosives Dumping Area" 10 x 10 miles square, 73 miles 074°T from Chesapeake Lightship, Chart 1109. 4b* 36°30'N 74°18'W 6000-7500 ft. "Explosives Dumping Area" 10 x 10 miles square, 74 miles 113°T from Chesapeake Lightship, Chart 1109. To serve Moreheod City — Beaufort, North Carolina: 5 34°26'N 76°54'W 77-81 ft. 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. To serve Savannah area: 6 32°20'N 79°55'W 60ft. "Dumping Ground (by permit only)" 8.5 miles diameter, 20 miles 136°T from mouth of North Edisto R., Chart 1111. *See last paragraph on page 33. 35

OCR for page 16
TABLE Vl-Continued 6a 32°00'N 80°30'W 60ft. A poor bottom for fishing. 18 miles from Ft. Screven, Chart 1240. 6b 32°15'N 78°40'W 120ft. "Explosives Dumping Area", 10 miles diameter, 70 miles from Charleston, South Carolina, Chart 1111. To serve Jacksonville, Florida: 7 30°33'N 81°09.2'W 67-70 ft. "Wreck, 42' Reported", 18 miles from Mayport, Chart 1243. 7a 30°37'N 79°53'W 1800ft. "Explosives Dumping Area, Disused", 83 miles from Mayport, Chart 1111. To serve the Florida peninsula: 8 26°05.5 'N 80°02.5 'W 3600 ft. 2 miles east of Port Everglades Sea Buoy, Chart 1248. To serve Pensocola — Mobile Bay: 9 29°48'N 87°33'W 138ft. "Dumping Ground" 35 miles from Pensacola, Chart 1115. 9a 29°48'N 87°10'W 600ft. Rough ground not suitable for trawling, 34 miles from Pensacola, Chart 1115. 9b 29°22'N 87°15'W 1800ft. "Explosives Dumping Area, Disused", 10 x 10 miles square, Chart 1115. To serve New Orleans, Louisiana: 10 28°40 'N 89°51 'W 600 ft. Rough ground, not suitable for trawling, 26 miles from Southwest Pass, Chart 1116. lOa 28°30'N 89°10'W 1800ft. "Explosives Dumping Area, Disused", 10 x 10 miles square, 30 miles from South Pass, Chart 1115. lOb 28°25'N 88°55'W 3600ft. "Explosives Dumping Area", 10 x 10 miles square, 36 miles from South Pass, Chart 1115. To serve Golveston, Texas: 11 29°00'N 94°35'W 54ft. Southernmost corner of a 5.5 x 11 mile rectangle. 'Dumping Ground (by permit only)" 21 miles from Galveston Entrance, Chart 1116. lla 29°22'N 93°40'W 42 ft. Rectangular 4x9 miles "Dumping Ground (by permit only)" 19 miles from Sabine Pass, Chart 1116. lib 27°40'N 93°30'W 1500ft. "Explosives Dumping Area, Disused" 10 x 10 miles square, 100 miles 175°T from Galveston Entrance, Chart 1116. To serve Corpus Christi, Texas: 12a 27°15'N 96°00'W 1500ft. "Explosives Dumping Area, Disused", 10 x 10 miles square, 65 miles 122°T from Aransas Pass, Chart 1117. 36

OCR for page 16
REFERENCES 1. 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 2. Packaging of Contaminated (Radioactive) Scrap for Disposal. U.S. Atomic En- ergy Commission. New York Operations Office, Health and Safety Laboratory, 70 Columbus Ave., New York 23, N.Y. (not dated) 3. Maximum Permissible Amounts of Radioisotopes in the Human Body and Maxi- mum Permissible Concentrations in Air and Water. Handbook 52. U.S. Depart- ment of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards (1953) 4. Radioactive Waste Disposal in the Ocean. Handbook 58. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards (1954) 5. The Effects of Atomic Radiation on Oceanography and Fisheries. National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council. Publication 551 (1957) 6. Report of a Meeting of United Kingdom and United States Scientists on Biologi- cal Effects of Radiation in Oceanography and Fisheries. National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council, (mimeograph) Oct. 31, 1956 7. Pathological Effects of Atomic Radiations. National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council. Publication 452 (1956) 8. The Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation. Summary Reports. National Acad- emy of Sciences - National Research Council (1956) 9. Looney, Wm. B. Effects of Radium in Man. Science, 127 No. 3299, p. 630 (1958) 10. Uhlig, H. H., Corrosion Handbook. John Wiley and Sons, pp. 383-390 (1948) 11. 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. National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council. Publication 201 (1951) 12. Reid, R. O. An Analysis of Dispersion of Radioactivity from Local Sources on the Sea Bed. (Unpublished) 13. Taylor, Harden F. A Survey of Marine Fisheries of North Carolina. Univer- sity of North Carolian Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina 555 pp. (1951) 37

OCR for page 16

OCR for page 16

OCR for page 16

OCR for page 16
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES- NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL The National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council is a private, nonprofit organization of scientists, dedicated to the furtherance of science and to its use for the general welfare. The Academy itself was established in 1863 under a Con- gressional charter signed by President Lincoln. Empowered to provide for all activities appropriate to academies of science, it was also required by its charter to act as an adviser to the Federal Government in scientific matters. This provision accounts for the close ties that have always existed between the Academy and the Government, although the Academy is not a governmental agency. The National Research Council was established by the Academy in 1916, at the request of President Wilson, to enable scientists generally to associate their efforts with those of the limited membership of the Academy in service to the nation, to society, and to science at home and abroad. Members of the National Research Council receive their appointments from the President of the Academy. They include representatives nominated by the major scientific and technical societies, representatives of the Federal Gov- ernment, and a number of members-at-large. In addition, several thousand scientists and engineers take part in the activities of the Research Council through membership on its various boards and committees. Receiving funds from both public and private sources, by contributions, grant, or contract, the Academy and its Re- search Council thus work to stimulate research and its applications, to survey the broad possibilities of science, to promote effective utilization of the scientific and technical resources of the country, to serve the Government, and to further the general interests of science.