4? i,S5 -"^A^i^^
Btjantic and Gulf
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES-
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
The Committee on Oceanography was organized In 1957 within the
Division of Earth Sciences of the National Academy of Sciences —
National Research Council. Its activities have been jointly sponsored
by the Atomic Energy Commission, the Bureau of Commercial Fish-
eries, the National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval Re-
search. The Committee's objectives are to assist in the development
of the marine sciences, to encourage basic research and to advise
the government agencies on various oceanographic problems.
The map on fhe front cover is a portion of a chart originally published in Peter
Goos' De Zee Atlas in 1667. We are grateful to the American Geographic Society
for loan of the original map and permission to reprint it here.
\jOifO] lN> vfDL\)e: [AgA)-^
Radioactive Waste Disposal
Atlantic and Gulf/" DOCf^^^tl^T
Woods Hole Oceanograpj^fc
A Report from a Working Group of the Committee
on Oceanography of the National Academy of
Sciences — National Research Council.
[Rational Academy of Sciences — National Research Council
Library of Congress catalog cord number: 59-60046
Dayton E. Carritt, Chairman ,
The Johns Hopkins University-
Dean F. Bumpus
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
James H. Carpenter
The Johns Hopkins University-
Walter A. Chip man
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
John H. Harley
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission
Bruce C. Heezen
Bostwick H. Ketchum
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Robert O. Reid
A. and M. College of Texas
Department of the Interior
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword by Roger R. Revelle vii
The Problem 3
Present Sea Disposal Practices 4
Low Level Wastes Generated Within AEC Facilities 6
Low Level Wastes Generated Within Government Operations
other Than AEC 6
Low Level Radioactive Wastes Generated Within Private
Estimate of the Fraction of the Production of Oak Ridge
National Laboratories Shipped to Other Than Atomic
Energy Commission Operations, That Became Wastes for
Sea Disposal 8
Previous Studies 8
The Present Problem 11
The Basis for Judgment 11
Why Dispose at Sea? 14
Transport and Dispersion l6
Movement of Bottom Sediment 16
Near-bottom Water Circulation 16
Surface Circulation 17
Diffusion Processes 18
Sustained Gross Source 20
Instantaneous Source 21
Continuous Sources at Uniform Leaching Rate 23
Sorption and Exchange 24
Permissible Concentrations of Radioisotopes in Sea Water
and Uptake by Marine Organisms 26
Possible Conflict with Other Interests 27
Commercial Fisheries 27
Submarine Cables 29
Maximum Rate of Disposal 30
Pre-Use Survey and Monitoring 30
Disposal Areas 33
RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL INTO ATLANTIC
AND GULF COASTAL WATERS
In January 1958, the Committee on Oceanography of the National
Academy of Sciences - National Research Council was asked to conduct
a detailed study of the problems of the disposal of low level radioactive
wastes into the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastal w^aters of the United
States. This request was made jointly by the three government sponsors
of the Committee: The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, the U. S. Atomic
Energy Commission, and the Office of Naval Research.* The Committee
agreed to take responsibility for such a study, and Dr. Harrison Brown,
Committee Chairman, asked me, as a member of the Committee on
Oceanography and Chairman of the Academy's Committee on Effects of
Atomic Radiation on Oceanography and Fisheries, to call together a
special working group. This group was asked to consider the levels of
radioactive wastes that can be disposed of Scifely, the kinds of packaging
that should be used, and to recommend specific disposal sites.
A preliminary draft of this report was finished in May 1958 and
discussed in detail before a meeting of the Committee on Oceanography
shortly thereafter. The Committee approved the report and authorized
its reproduction in mimeograph form prior to a similar review by the
Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation on Oceanography and
Fisheries, The latter Committee met in March 1959. At that time the
report was brought up to date and approved in its present form.
In its study, the group has taken into account the effects of local
oceanographi c conditions, possible health hazards and the iraportance
of non-interference with fisheries, recreational and other uses of the
oceans. The report makes recommendations as to the amounts of dif-
ferent radioactive isotopes that can be disposed of safely in any one
area. Twenty- eight possible disposal sites are listed. Before any one
of these is finally selected, a pre-use survey should be made. The area
should be monitored periodically after disposal begins.
The working group has attempted to make its recommendations
as precise as possible within the limits of our present knowledge of the
physics, chemistry, and biology of the oceans. Where uncertainties exist
because of inadequate knowledge a conservative position has been
chosen — that is, the calciolations underlying the recommendations may
err on the side of safety. Each assumption and each step in the calcula-
tions is fully described, however, so that the reader may make an inde-
pendent evaluation of the degree of conservatism.
*The National Science Foundation has since become one of the sponsors of the Committee.
Publication of this report is made possible through the cooperation
of the National Academy of Sciences - Nationcil Research Council, Earth
Sciences Division, Committee on Waste Disposal, Advisory to the U. S.
Atomic Energy Commission, For the results of other NAS - NRC '
studies pertaining to the disposal of radioactive wastes, the reader is
referred to "The Disposal of Radioactive Wastes on Land" NAS - NRC
Pub. 519, April 1957, and "Thermal Considerations of Deep Disposal ,
of Radioactive Wastes", a specicil report by Dr. Francis Birch, NAS - '
NRC Pub. 588, September 1958.
Reports are also in progress on the disposal of low-level wastes ,
into Pacific coastal waters and on radioactive waste disposal from
Scripps Institution of Oceanography \
La Jolla, California
RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL INTO
ATLANTIC AND GULF COASTAL WATERS
A study has been made of the feasibility of using selected areas in
the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastal waters of the United States as
receiving grounds for the disposal of packaged, low level radioactive
The primary objective of the study has been to provide an esti-
mate of the rate of return of radioactive substances to maji, arising
from stated rates of disposal into the coastal areas. The limiting rate
of disposal has been taken as that w^hich through a combination of physi-
cal and biological processes will return the radioactivity to man at a
rate equal to the ma:ximum permissible rate of ingestion of a given ra-
dionuclide in drinking water.
These rates were based on the occupational MFC's (maximum
permissible concentration) given in Handbook 52 (3). The MFC's for
the general population according to recent information should be low-
ered by a factor of 10. The revised MFC's of some isotopes may be
reduced even further. It is believed, however, that the conservative
assumptions contained in this report offset the effects of these reduc-
tions in MFC values.
The present practice of using 55 gallon steel drums as disposal
canisters containing the waste nnixed with concrete is estimated to pro-
vide containment of approximately 10 years, during which time radio-
active decay will have destroyed all radioisotopes (based upon Oak
Ridge National Laboratories current rate of production and shipment)
to below hazardous levels, with the exception of Sr 90, Cs 137, and pos-
sibly Co 60.
Coastal circulation is not known in sufficient detail to provide
quantitative estimates of the rate of transport of a contaminant out of
any of the areas selected as possible disposal sites. These estimates
can be made only after detailed circulation studies have been completed.
Especially lacking is knowledge of the circvilation of bottom waters.
Nevertheless, several areas stand out as being probably unsuited as
disposal sites. They are the coastal estuaries and bays, and the regions
immediately seaward of these areas. Shoreward transport along the
bottom in these regions would tend to intensify the rate of return of a
contaminant to man. Also, a region southeast of Long Island, extending
out to approximately 50 fathoms, appears to have restricted bottom
circulation during the summer months and therefore might accumulate
larger quantities of contaminant than other coastal areas.
A theoretical study of the dilution of contaminant by turbulent
mixing processes has been made. The results of the study provide the
means of evaluating the effects of changing environmental parameters
and of various disposal methods on the dilution of a contaminant. Be-
cause of the assumptions made all estimates of concentration at a given
distance and time are probably higher by at least a factor of ten than
would actually exist in practice. Even with these conservative assump-
tions calculations show that given a rate of disposal of 100 curies per
year of uncontained waste into water 30 meters deep with a current of
5 miles per day, the maximum concentration of waste which will appear
one kilometer (approximately 5/8 miles) from the disposal site will be
2 X 10"^ |ic/ml, a concentration that is lower than the maximum permis-
sible concentration of Sr 90 in drinking water. Sr 90 has the lowest
MPC vcdue of all radioisotopes listed. In addition, the relationships
between both relative concentration and time ctfter release and distance
from the disposal site, under the unlikely condition that no current will
aid in diffusive mixing, have been developed.
In arriving at recommended disposal rates the interaction of a
contaminant with suspended solids and bottom sediments has been neg-
lected. It was found impossible to make a quantitative estimate of the
magnitude of this reaction. Neglecting this factor puts a certain factor
of safety in the recommendations, as sorption onto bottom sediments
within the disposal area will provide additional containment, thus allow-
ing for further destruction of the contaminant by radioactive decay. In
the case of disposal into areas productive in commercially important
shellfish (oysters, clams, etc.) the sorption onto bottom deposits may
become a potential hazard rather than a safety factor. This situation
has been eliminated by selecting areas in which no shell fisheries occur.
The return of radioactive wastes to mcin by ingestion of contam-
inated marine food products is considered to be the most likely poten-
tial source of hazard that could res\ilt from disposal into coastal waters,
An estimate has been made of the maximum permissible concentration
of each of several radioisotopes in sea water, below which contamina-
tion of marine food products will not lead to greater than allowable in-
take by humans whose sole source of protein is fish. This estimate
was derived from the maximum permissible concentration of the iso-
topes in drinking water, from which was computed the maximum
weekly intake of each of the isotopes; the weekly ingestion rate of fish,
taken as 1.5 kg, a value that is high compared with the per capita value
for this country but has been taken on the assumption that some indi-
viduals obtain all of their protein from fish; and the extent to which
marine organisms can concentrate the various isotopes within them-
selves above the level in their environment. The most hazardous iso-
tope in the list is Sr 90, for which the maximum permissible concen-
tration in sea water is 8 x 10"^ iic/ml, which by coincidence is identical
with the MPC value for drinking water.
Suggested disposal areas have been chosen in an attempt to min-
imize conflict with submarine cable operation, as well as the purely-
mechanical problems connected with fisheries activities.
The panel is of the opinion that certain Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico coastal areas can be used as receiving w^aters for the controlled
disposal of packaged, low level, radioactive wastes.
Twenty-eight possible locations have been selected (figure 7, p. 34)
thatcoiild, on the basis of presently available information, be used with-
out limiting our other uses of coastal waters. The actual choice of dis-
posal areas should be undertaken within the following limitations:
1. Prior to start of disposal operations a survey of an area must
be made to determine details of local circulation and an inventory of
the biota, especially of bottom-living organisms.
2. The total quantity of activity that is deposited into any one
disposal area in any one year should be limited to 250 curies of Sr 90
or the equivalent of other isotopes. For the equivalent amounts of other
isotopes see Table II and the accompajiying discussion on page 13.
3. The total quantity of activity that is deposited in any one area
during any given month should be limited to 100 curies of Sr 90 or the
equivalent of other isotopes.
4. Adjacent disposal areas should be separated by at least 75
mil e s .
5. No 300 mile section of coast line should contain more than
three disposal areas unless predominant currents, both bottom and sur-
face, indicate that no exchange between areas is possible.
6. 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.
7. Periodically during use, the area should be monitored to pro-
vide a measure of the spread of radioactivity throughout the region in-
cluding both the biota and the bottom sediments, and to note changes
that might be caused by disposal operations. The resxilts of this moni-
toring may indicate that certain of the above assumptions should be
The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission has asked the Committee
on Oceanography of the National Academy of Sciences - National
Research Council to study the feasibility of disposing of low level,
packaged, radioactive wastes into the on-shore waters of the Atlantic
and Gulf of Mexico coasts of the United States. The areas of special
interest are closer to shore than the present designated areas now 100
and more miles out.
The objectives of the study are to recommend locations that can
be used safely as disposal areas, together with the limitations on quan-
tity and kinds of radioactive materials, rates of disposal, and other
pertinent factors necessary to keep the concentration of radioactive
substances within permissible levels.
Of special interest is the use of near-shore regions as disposal
areas for the low level radioactive wastes generated in university and
industrial laboratories, hospitals, and research institutions licensed
by AEC to use relatively small quantities of radioactive materials.
We emphasize here the term low level wastes . These are broadly
classified as wastes containing up to the equivalent of millicurie quan-
tities of activity per gallon. They are distinct from high level wastes,
such as those obtained from the processing of spent reactor fuels which
may contain hundreds of curies per gallon. The present study is not
concerned with the disposal of high level wastes.
PRESENT SEA DISPOSAL PRACTICES
With the increasing quantities of radioactive materials that have
been used in peacetime applications by both AEC and non-AEC institu-
tions there has been a corresponding increase in the quantities of low
level wastes that have no further usefulness, but because they do repre-
sent a potential health hazard cannot be disposed of by conventional
methods (municipal incinerators, sanitary dumps, etc.). In the past,
much of this waste material has been packaged and dumped into desig-
nated areas approximately 200 miles off the Atlantic Coast in approxi-
mately 1000 fathoms of water. Much of the material has been carried
to the disposal areas by navcd vessels during scheduled disposal of
non- radioactive wastes. In addition, civilian waste disposal concerns,
licensed by the AEC, have dumped small quantities of low level wastes
into coastal waters in areas normally used as receiving areas for non-
radioactive wastes. Recently AEC received several new requests for
the licensing of civilian marine disposal concerns.
Table I and figure 1 summarize the sea disposal operations that
have been conducted along the Atlantic Coast from 1951 to 1958. (1)
It should be emphasized that the quantities of activity listed were not
measured at the time of disposal to the sea. At best, they were meas-
ured at the time of packaging of the wastes, and frequently the values
reported are estimates made by the users of the material who listed
the total amount of activity shipped to them, with no allowance made
for losses during use and for radioactive decay. The quantities listed
are therefore, unquestionably, larger than the quantities actually depos-
ited in the disposal areas.
PAST AND PROJECTED AMOUNTS OF RADIOACTIVE
MATERIALS DISPOSED IN ATLANTIC OCEAN
AEG wastes (U. S. Navy Disposal)
Government agencies, non-AEC
(U. S. Navy and Coast Guard Disposal)
University and industrial labs.
1951-1957 1958-1963 Location (Fig. 1)
d, e, f and
Data from reference (1)
These disposal operations can be divided into three broad sub-
divisions, using the immediate source of the wastes as a criterion.
1 . Low level wastes generated within AEC facilities .
These constitute, by far, the largest quantities of radioactive
materials that have been deposited in the Atlantic disposal areas. Since
1951, 5870 curies of a variety of isotopes contained in 8432 fifty-five
gallon drums have been disposed of. A rather insignificant fraction of
this total was deposited in the designated area approximately 200 miles
due east of Cape Cod, area a, figure 1. Most of it has been added to the
disposal area approximately 200 miles east of Cape May (Delaware Bay),
area b, figure 1 .
The AEC has described the general nature of these wastes as
"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 I
with decontamination operations. For the most part, they f
consist of solid materials such as paper wipes, rags, mops, \
ashes, animal carcasses and contaminated laboratory para- '.'
phernalia. Some liquids containing radioactivity in the con- '
centration range of microcuries per liter have been incor- '
porated in cement mixtures or with chemical gelling mate-
rials prior to packaging and dumping. Because the wastes
and their contaminating radioisotopes are heterogeneous in i
character, it is difficult to determine accurately the total
quantities of radioactivity involved."
Most of these wastes have been packaged in fifty-five gallon drums
with added concrete to insure proper bulk density. The AEC has set i
specifications (1) (2) for the packaging and handling of contaminated •
2. Low level wastes generated within government operations other than i
Four agencies (the National Bureau of Standards, the Naval 1
Ordinance Laboratory, the Naval Research Laboratory, and the National
Institutes of Health) all in the Washington, D.C. area, have since 1955
generated approximately four curies of heterogeneous wastes that have
been deposited in a designated disposal area, approximately 75 miles
east southeast of Cape Henry (Cheasapeake Bay), by the U.S. Coast
Guard. This is area c^, figure 1. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Beaufort, N.C., has disposed of less thaji 0.2 of a curie of heterogeneous
wastes, in area d, figure 1, approximately 8 miles off-shore from
Beaufort, North Carolina.
3. Low level radioactive wastes generated within private facilities .
Several industrial concerns and research laboratories licensed by
AEC to use radioactive materials have either conducted their ov/n waste
disposal operations or have contracted w^ith licensed marine disposal
companies to have the wastes carried to sea. The areas in vsrhich low
level radioactive wastes have been dumped at sea by these operations
are the unlettered areas in figure 1. Approximately 25 curies have
been disposed of through these channels, most of it several hundred
miles off shore.
In all, something less than 6000 curies were added to the water
off the Atlantic coast of the U.S. between 1951 and 1958. The exact
composition of this waste material is uncertain; that is, it is impossible
to determine the quajitities of various radioisotopes, and in many cases
the total activity associated with a disposal container is vincertain. By
far the greatest bulk of this material has been deposited into water
1000 fathoms or more deep, and in containers that will provide some
factor of safety to the environment, in that at least a part of the wastes
will have disappeared by natural radioactive decay before being released
to the sea.
A survey of the area that has received most of the wastes, area
b, figure 1, was made by the Chesapeake Bay Institute of The Johns
Hopkins University, and the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. The activ-
ity, beta and gamma counting, of samples of bottom sediments taken
within the disposal area w^as compared to the analysis of samples
taken outside of the area. No difference coiild be found. Comments on
survey methods will be made in a later section.
The quantity of low level radioactive wastes that will, under ex-
isting operational procedures, find its way into the Atlantic coastal
waters is increasing. The off-shore, deep w^ater disposal areas appear
to be adequate to handle projected quantities of these wastes without
limiting our other uses of these waters. Of immediate concern to the
AEC is the increase in the qucuitities of radioactive materials used by
non-governmental agencies and the increase in the numbers of com-
mercial marine disposal concerns who are seeking licenses to handle
and dispose of the low level radioactive wastes into shallow coastal
In general, marine disposal concerns are at present not equipped
to carry the wastes several hundred miles to sea, at least not without
a considerable increase in the cost of the service. The disposal con-
cerns would like to deposit these wastes in existing or newly designated
disposed areas in the relatively shallow coastal waters up to approxi-
mately fifty miles from shore. One concern has, with AEC permission,
disposed of limited quantities of packaged low level wastes in 50 fathoms
of water, some twelve to fifteen miles from the coast, area e, figure 1.
4. Estimate of the fraction of the production of Oak Ridge National
Laboratories shipped to other than AEC operations, that became wastes
for sea disposal .
During the period January 1956 to September 1957, ORNL shipped
approximately 50,000 curies, measured at the tinne of shipnnent, for use
by non-AEC facilities. Of this total, approximately 28,759 curies were
isotopes w^ith short half lives, while isotopes of strontium, cobalt, ce-
sium, iron, and zinc amounted to 21,141 curies, of which 21,020 were
shipped as "sealed sources". Assuming that sealed sources (cobalt
bars, for example, used as radiation sources) will not find their way
into commercial disposal routes when their initial usefulness has passed,
121 curies of long-lived isotopes appear as the potential supply that
might have arrived at dockside for disposal at sea. During the same
period, an estimated 25 curies (composition doubtful) was actually dis-
posed of at sea.
If the assumption concerning the fate of "sealed sources" is cor-
rect and if the estimate of 25 curies disposed of at sea is correct, then
approximately 20% of the ORNL shipments of "hazardous isotopes" to
non-AEC users will eventually appear as wastes for sea disposal.
Several studies have been made since 1950 that are either directly
or indirectly concerned with the disposal of radioactive substances
into the sea. The first of these, published as U.S. Bureau of Standards
Handbook 52 (3) lists the quantities of each of a number of radioisotopes
that can be retained safely in the body, as well as the concentration of
each isotope that can be tolerated in drinking water and in air. The
maximum permissible body burden, drinking water and air concentra-
tions are considered to be the levels below which no readily detectable
biological damage will occur in man under conditions of continual ex-
posure at those levels.
Although the recommendations contained in Handbook 52 were
based upon the best biological and radiological evidence available, the
authors note that in several cases the evidence available to them was
scant and that the maximum permissible concentration levels should be
revised as new evidence becomes available. In this connection Looney
(9) suggested that the accepted level for radium, which forms the basis
(in part) for the calculation of the permissible levels of other isotopes,
is too high and recommends that the radium level be lowered until more
information becomes available on the effects of radium in man over a
In calculations made later in this report, the recommended maxi-
mum permissible levels in Handbook 52 have been used. We realize
that man does not drink seawater; however, the Handbook 52 values give
a basis for estimating the maximum permissible rate of ingestion of
radionuclides that may be contained in marine food products.
In 1954 a study was made by the sub- committee on Waste Disposal
and Decontamination of the National Committee on Radiation Protection,
of the problems connected with the disposal of radioactive materials in
the ocean. This study was published as Handbook 58 of the National
Bureau of Standards (4). Although Handbook 58 does not make specific
recommendations with regard to disposal site locations, rates of dis-
posal, etc., it does recommend that all radioactive wastes that are to
be disposed of into the sea be packaged and that disposal be into water
at least 1000 fathoms deep. These two recommendations form the basis
for present AEC sea disposal regulations. In addition. Handbook 58
enumerates the physical, chemical, and biological factors thought to be
important in regulating the dispersal of a contaminant throughout the
oceans. However, because of lack of quantitative information, no at-
tempt was made to combine the various factors to obtain an estimate of
the level of contamination of the ocean and marine food products asso-
ciated ^vith stated disposal practices.
In 1956 the National Academy of Sciences - National Research
Council organized six committees to study various aspects of the bio-
logical effects of atomic radiation. The report of one of these Commit-
tees, the Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation on Oceanography
and Fisheries, was published in 1957 as Publication 551 of the National
Academy of Sciences - National Research Council (5).
Publication 551 gives a detailed account of the state of knowledge
of the physical, chemical, biological and geological factors involved in
the interaction of radioactive w^astes, especially fission product elements,
with the marine environment. While much of this study is concerned with
the deep oceans, and the massive quantities of materials that will be
produced as a result of nuclear pow^er production, it is, nevertheless, a
useful guide in the attempted solution of all problems concerned with
radioactive wastes and the marine environment.
Following the 195 6 meetings of the Committee on the Effects of
Atomic Radiation on Oceanography and Fisheries, but before Publication
551 was completed, a meeting of several scientists frora the United
States and the United Kingdom was held, at which there w^as a liberal
exchange of information concerning the problems of the disposal of ra-
dioactive wastes in 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 pipe-
line, directly into the Irish Sea, with authorization to discharge at the
rate of 1000 curies per month. The basis for the authorization was the
results of a series of studies giving: (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 adjoining
area, estimated from the circulation study and uptake experiments; and
(4) the level of contamination of local beaches, estimated from the cir-
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 States
Scientists on Biological Effects of Radiation in Oceanography and Fish-
eries," National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council, Oc-
tober 31, 1956 (6). 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 radioac-
tive substances into coastal waters are set, in all cases, by
two considerations. The first is the transfer of these sub-
stances back to man and his surroundings. The second is
the effect upon the marine resources and environment.
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 de-
tails of the physical, chemical, and biological factors, and
the habits of the human population potentially affected.
Continuing studies are required at each disposal lo-
cality to insure safety, to determine ultimate steady state
conditions, and to detect possible long term variations aris-
ing from variability of the environment.
Such investigations have been carried out over a num-
ber 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 liquids and sludges in containers which can
rupture and thus liberate their contents to the sea, and solid
materials of density greater than sea v/ater may also be
safely disposed of in coastal waters if proper precautions
are observed. The amount of activity which is dissolved in
the sea water, or taken up by organisms, from such mate-
rials is subject to the same limitations as for biilk liquid
Precautions must be taken to guard against recovery
by fishing or salvage operations, or transport to areas
w^here the material could constitute a hazard. Disposal
areas for such wastes should be in designated locations, and
all disposal should be adequately recorded and controlled.
THE PRESENT PROBLEM
The basis for judgment.
The request from the Atomic Energy Commission asks essentially
for a differentiation between safe and unsafe procedures related to the
dumping of radioactivity into coastal waters.
The determination of where safe procedures end and unsafe pro-
cedures begin involves an evaluation of information in two very different
fields of science. The first is radiation biology, a field that can supply
information concerning tolerance limits for the quantities of radioactive
materials that man can have either in his immediate environment or
within himself, without regard for how it gets there. The second science
field is oceanography, which can supply a description of the processes
that can bring radioactive substances from a marine disposal area back
We emphasize here that the very nature of the primary information
upon which our evaluation is based makes the division between safe and
unsafe disposal procedures a rather broad region rather than a sharp
dividing line. Because of this we have, with purpose, adopted a conser-
vative attitude in our integration of the many pieces of information that
make up our conclusions.
Radioactive substances are a potential hazard to man, (1) because
of radiation received from the immediate environment (external emit-
ters), and (2) because of radiation received by substances taken into the
body by ingestion, inhalation, or absorption through the skin (internal
emitters). In both cases the potential hazards may do damage to the
individual so as to reduce the life span, impair the functioning of parts
of the body, etc., i.e. pathological damage, or to increase the mutation
rate w^hich will alter the inherited characteristics in future generations,
i.e. genetic damage.
Our present state of knowledge with regard to the pathological
effects of radiation is given in detail in NAS-NRC Publication 452 (7).
A summary report of the National Academy of Sciences - National
Research Council Committee on the Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation
was published in 1956 (8).
The separation of safe from hazardous sea disposal procedures
must be made, first of all, on the basis of potential hazard to man
through his normal utilization of the sea, and secondly, on the possibility
of injurious effect produced in the marine environment itself.
Our assessment of the quantities and the rates of disposal of low
level radioactive wastes into in- shore water that will create a potential
hazard to man, through his uses of the sea and marine products, devel-
oped from consideration of the natural processes occurring in the ma-
rine environment that could bring the radioactive wastes back to man
from suggested disposal sites. We have recognized two mechanisms
that appear to be the most likely avenues through which this could occur.
They are: (1) transport of the radioactive wastes from the disposal
sites to the immediate shoreline, thereby creating a potential hazard in
man's recreational uses of the coast, and (2) uptake of the radioactive
waste components by one or more of the trophic levels in the marine
biota with return to man in commercially important fish and shellfish.
We wo\ild emphasize at this point that in all cases our separation
of hazardous from non-hazardous procedures, so far as man's tolerance
for radiation is concerned, is based upon the Handbook 52 values for
maximum permissible amounts of radioisotopes in the total body and
maximum permissible concentrations in water. The latter are for
drinking water or for submersion in contaminated fluids. These values
consider only pathological effects. No evaluation of possible genetic
damage was attempted when Handbook 52 values were compiled. The
conclusions in this report, then, may need revision if Handbook 52 ma:x-
imum permissible levels are drastically altered, or when some of the
xxncertainties introduced by lack of information in our evaluation of the
oceanographic factors become better known. However, since Handbook
52 values are thought to be conservative and since our analysis of the
oceanographic factors presents a conservative estimate of the behavior
of the environment, as will be described below, we believe disposaJ.
practices based upon our recommendations have little likelihood of pro-
ducing a hazard to man's present uses of the coastal waters.
In the reports of quantities of radioactive substances cdready dis-
posed of at sea one usually finds only the number of curies recorded.
Only infrequently are the isotopes listed. Although this is unavoidable
in many cases, a knowledge of the curie content of a disposal container
only partially defines the potential hazard of the material. The extreme
variability in the maximum permissible concentrations of various iso-
topes in drinking water (3), for example, 2 x lO'^ajid 8 x 10"^ (ic/cc for
tritium and strontium 90 respectively, emphasizes this point.
In the discussions which follow we will be concerned primarily
with strontium 90. The hazard of other isotopes, relative to strontium
90, insofar as uptaJce by marine organisms and return to man in marine
food products is concerned, will be given by the ratio of the permissible
sea water concentration of an isotope to that of strontium 90. Table II
lists the number of curies of each of a group of selected isotopes, equiv-
alent to 250 curies of strontium 90, the latter value being the suggested
maximum yearly rate of disposal of strontium 90 into any one disposal
area. Also shown are the quantities of each of the isotopes that would
decay to 250 equivalent curies follow^ing containment of one month and
of one year.
The significance of the quantities of isotopes relative to strontium-
90 is apparent when considering the practical problem of the disposal of
packages containing a mixture of isotopes. Assume, for example, that
packages containing v/aste of the follow^ing composition have been added
QUANTITIES OF SELECTED RADIOISOTOPES EQUIVALENT^
TO 250 CURIES OF STRONTIUM 90, SHOWING THE INITIAL
QUANTITIES THAT WILL DECAY TO 250 EQUIVALENT
CURIES ALLOWING ONE MONTH AND ONE YEAR CONTAIN-
1 mo. containment
1 yr. containment
5.0 X 107
1.1 X 10'
3.1 X 106
3.9 X 10^
5.6 X 10^
3.1 X 106
1.6 X 105
1.8 X 105
7.5 X 10^
1.2 X 103
1.9 X 10^
3.3 X 10^
6.2 X 103
6.3 X 103
7.0 X 103
5.0 X 10^
1.4 X 10^ '^
1.5 X 104
3.8 X 104
9.3 X 102
9.3 X 104
9.3 x 104
9.3 X 104
Equivalence based upon ratios of Permissible Sea Water Concentrations.
to a disposal area; 525 curies of Na-24; 1000 curies of Ca-45; 100
curies of Fe-59; 100 curies of Co-60; 120 curies of Sr-90; and 1000
curies of Cs-137. The total number of curies amounts to 2,845 well
over the suggested yearly limit of 250 curies of Sr-90. Obviously, the
relative hazard to man, considered in the route that might return the
waste to him from the disposal area through marine food products, will
be less for the mixture than for strontium- 90. If the quantities of each
of the isotopes above are multiplied by the ratio of the maximum per-
missible sea water concentration of strontium-90 to that of the isotope,
the sum of results assuming no containment is approximately 148
curies. This figure, which is a more realistic measure of the potential
hazard of the waste than the 2,845 curies, includes the effect of MPC
values for each isotope and the concentration factors from sea water to
marine food products.
Why dispose at sea?
There are two ways of handling radioactive materials to prevent
them from becoming a hazard to man. One is by c ontainment , which
has as its objective the retention of the material in such a manner that
it does not get into the human environment, at least until natural radio-
active decay has reduced the quantity of material to below^ permissible
levels. The other is by dispersal, which has as its objective the dilu-
tion of the waste to below permissible levels before it becomes a part
of the immediate human environment.
Within limits, procedures can be established so that disposal into
coastal waters can tatke advantage of some of the desirable features of
both methods of handling the wastes. The advantage of containment can
be achieved by proper canister design. Presently used canisters are
reclaimed 55 gallon steel drums which have an expected life, so far as
corrosion by sea water is concerned, of approxiraately ten years (10).
The factor of safety introduced by ten year containment is shown
in Table III, in which the percents of the initial activity remaining after
ten years and the maximum permissible concentrations for drinking
w^ater are listed for a group of isotopes including high yield, long-lived
fission products and the isotopes that are shipped from Oak Ridge
National Laboratories to licensed users.
Two features of Table III should be emphasized. First, isotopes
having long half life, that is, relatively large amounts remaining after
ten years, and low MPC values are those that may produce the greatest
potential hazard to man. Second, the MPC values are drinking water
values and we are concerned here with sea water. Although not directly
applicable to the present problem, these MPC values will be used later
in modified form.
The practice of mixing contaminated materials into concrete
which is then cast into the steel drum, provides for containment
PERCENTAGES OF INITIAL ACTIVITY REMAINING AFTER TEN YEAR CON-
TAINMENT AND MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE CONCENTRATIONS FOR DRINKING
WATER, FOR SELECTED FISSION PRODUCT ELEMENTS AND ORNL
4.2 X 10-3
6 X 10-2
3 X 10-3
7 X 10-5
8 X 10-3
8 X 10-7
2 X 10-^
5 X 10-3
1 X 10-2
5 X 10-^
3 X 10-5
1.5 X 10-3
4 X 10-3
2 X 10-2
1.3 X 10-2
4 X 10-2
1 X 10-^
MPC for mixtures of isotopes of unknown composition is IQ- |ic/ml.
beyond the life of the steel drum. On the other hand, experiments de-
signed to test the effect of hydrostatic pressure on disposal containers,
indicated that voids in concrete may, at depths of a few hundred to a
thousand meters, permit implosion of the steel drum and fracture of
the concrete, thereby bringing about premature release of contaminant
to the sea.
The tests of canisters -which have been performed have been con-
cerned with disposal into at least 1000 fathoms of water where pressures
in excess of 3000 pounds per square inch w^ill be encountered, whereas
we are concerned here with water depths up to approxinmately 30 fathoms
where pressure less than 100 pounds per square inch will be encoun-
tered. Although there is some doubt as to whether presently used con-
tainers remain intact after disposal to the sea bottom, proper design
and testing can provide the necessary information.
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
oceaji currents. An evaluation of the extent of dilution together with
processes that might combine to return the wastes to man are discussed
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 wo\ild seem desirable to dump harmless trace material
and observe from what distances appreciable material reaches the ad-
Near-bottom Water Circulation
Sub- surface circulation has not been studied with svifficient 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
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
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 w^aters 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 Ncuitucket
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, sumraarized 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.
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 Ne"w Jersey southw^ard 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.
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-bottora 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:
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 know^n
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
"■ 2D vzmix
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 mc/day)
Depth of water D = 30 meters (90 feet)
Diffusivity coefficient K = 1 cm^/sec
Current velocity U - 10 cm/sec (approx. 5 n. mi/day)
MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION C^, AT DISTANCES X FROM
SUSTAINED GROSS SOURCE WITH RATE OF SUPPLY 100
CURIES PER YEAR
X (Km) C^(|ic/ml)
1 2 X 10-7
4 1 X 10-7 •
10 7 X 10-8
20 5 X 10-8
40 3 X 10-8
100 2 X 10-8
It has been estimated that because of the assumptions under which
equation 1 was developed, the concentrations listed in Table IV are
certainly high by at least a factor of 10, and probably by a factor of 100.
Instantaneous Source . This case is analogous to the sudden rup-
turing of a cubical canister on the bottom under the assumption that all
of the contaminant is then free. Assuming no current to aid in dispersal,
the reduction in concentration at the canister due to diffusion processes
is given by:
where, C = the concentration at time t
C = initial concentration
V = volume of canister
K = diffusivity coefficient
The ratio of the interim concentration to initial concentration as
a function of time for the specific case of K = 1 cm2/sec, V = 190 liters
(volume approx. 50 gallons) is given in figure 3. It is seen that 0.01
curies contained initially in approximately 50 gallons, Cq = 54 pc/kg,
would be reduced to approximately 2 |ic/kg in 1 hour and to 0.06 ^ic/kg
in 10 hours.
(K=lcm2/sec, V= APPROX. 50GAL OR 190 LITERS)
O.lhr ihr I Ohrs
3 4 5 6 7 891
DIFFUSIVE DECAY OF CONCENTRATION AT SOURCE
SOURCE ON BOTTOM
D = 00
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 DISTANCE r/g
(l)Mox C/Co 'or
^Instantaneous "Bo* Source
on Bottom, D^to
Q)llila» C/Co for _
Instanlonacus "Bo* "Source
en Bottom, D/a - 100
Q)C/C0 for Continuous "Boi"
Source at uniform Leaching
Rote, D'ca, tt/K^tQ-^
DISTANCES FOR \/=49aal
RELATIVE CONCENTRATTON VERSUS DISTANCE FROM SOURCE
of the wsills. The effective diffusion coefficient through the walls is
teiken as the molecular diffusivity times the porosity of the walls, and
in nunnerical computations is assumed to be lO'^cm^/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 ajid 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 w^ater 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-
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
nnaterial 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
1. Partial removal of mixed fission products from solution was
achieved by centrifugal separation of naturally occurring solids from a
2. The sorption of phosphate, iodide, iron III, strontium, sulphate,
eind copper II onto Chesapeake Bay sediments has been measured under
a variety of environmentad conditions. With the exception of iodide, ap-
preciable removal from solution by the solids was observed under all
3. Sorption onto selected clay minerals has been studied and is
recommended as a means of solution decontamination, under certain
4. The differences in coraposition 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-
5. The sediments in the area around the end of the discharge line
from the British Atoraic Energy Authority processing plant at Windscale
on the shore of the Irish Sea, show a relatively large accumulation of
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 bottora 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 qucintitative 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.
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
w^ell 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 amimals
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-
iccd damage will occur, by drinking approximately 15,000 milliliters
(15 liters) of water per week, at MPC levels, for 30 years. Thus, the
MPC Vcdues permit the calculation of a permissible weekly intake for
each of the nuclides listed. For example, the MPC value for Sr^O is
8 X 10'^ M.c/ml. We calculate the permissible weekly intake of Sr90 to
be 1.2 X 10-2 ^c.
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 msLximum 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 ajid eat little or no fish or other marine products.
A man would have to eat approximately four pounds of fish weekly in
order to match the average U.S. protein consumption. It has seemed to
us reasonable to taJke a value approaching this as the extreme case of
an individual subsisting almost entirely on fish as the source of protein
in his diet, and have used 1.5 kg (3.3 pounds) per week in further com-
putations. For example, for Sr^^, using 1.2 x 10"2 |ic, computed above,
as the maximum permissible weekly intake of nuclide and 1.5 kg as the
weekly consumption of fish, we compute 8 x 10 "3 p,c/kg as the maximum
permissible concentration of Sr^O in fish.
3. Next, having the maximum permissible concentration of a
nuclide in fish and the concentration factor achieved by fish for the
nuclide we compute the maximum permissible concentration for the
nuclide in sea water. Again using Sr90 as an example, the maximum
permissible concentration in fish of 8 x 10'3 |ic/kg, combines with a
concentration factor of 10, assuming the density of fish to be 1.0, to
give a maximum permissible concentration in sea water of 8 x 10 "4 |ic/
liter or 8 X 10'^ |ic/ml, which by coincidence is identical with the MPC
value in drinking w^ater.
4. These computations are summarized by the relationship:
MPC X D = PSC X f X F
MPC = maximum permissible concentration in
drinking water (|ic/ml)
D = volurae of water drunk per week, taken
as 15,000 ml
PSC = permissible sea water concentration (|ic/ml)
f = concentration factor by the organism
F = weekly consumption of fish, taken to be 1.5
kg, ctnd assuming a density of 1.0, to be
equivcuLent to 1,500 ml.
Computations, outlined above, have been made for a number of
radionuclides, including the major isotopes shipped from ORNL, as well
as several of the more hazardous fusion product elements. These com-
putations are summarized in Table V.
POSSIBLE CONFLICTS WITH OTHER INTERESTS
Many areas along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States
have well developed, active fisheries. The disposed of radioactive wastes
in these areas might be objectionable, not only because of the possibility
SUMMARY OF PERMISSIBLE CONCENTRATION OF SELECTED
RADIONUCLIDES IN DRINKING WATER; EDIBLE MARINE
PRODUCTS; AND SEA WATER
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Maximum weekly Concentration
MFC (tic/cc) dose (^c) RFC (lic/gm) factor PSC (^ic/ml)
3 X 10-3
3 X 10-2
8 X 10-3
1.6 X 10-1
2 X 10-4
2 x 10-3
5 X 10-8
5 X 10-3
5 X 10^2
1 X 10-2
1 X 10-2
1 X 10-1
1 X 10-2
5 X 10-4
5 X 10-3
5 X 10-4
5 X 10-2
5 X 10-1
4 X 10-3
4 X 10-2
4 X 10-6
2 X 10-2
2 X 10-5
8 X 10-1
1.6 X 10-4
6 X 10-2
1.2 X 10-4
8 X 10-7
8 X 10-6
3 X 10-5
3 X 10-4
3 X 10-6
1.5 X 10-3
1.5 X 10-2
3 X 10-4
9 X 10-4
9 X 10-3
1. Handbook 52 values (3).
2. From MPC and weekly ingestion rate of 15 liters of water.
3. Permissible fish concentration. From maximum weekly dose, and weekly ingestion rote of 1.5
kg of fish.
4. The concentration factors for the soft tissues of vertebrates or invertebrates, whichever is
higher, from Revel le and Schaeffer (5). In all cases, except P 32, figures are for inverte-
brates; vertebrates are lower by a factor of one half to one tenth.
*Maximum factor for plankton species. Ketchum and Bowen (in press).
**Data for soft tissues of oysters. Chipman (unpublished).
of contamination of the fish, with the development of a potential hazard
to consumers, but also because the accumulation of disposed containers
on the bottom might create a hazard to fishing equipment, especially to
trawl gear that wovild become damaged or possibly lost if dragged over
heavy concrete disposed, containers. Furthermore, if radioactive dis-
posal areas are to be closed to fishing, as they undoubtedly should be,
it is in the interest of the best uses of our marine resources that dis-
posal areas be placed where little or no fishing now occurs.
In some areas the fishing intensity is well defined. This is the
case in the coastal area northward from Long Island and including the
Gulf of Maine. Most coastal estuaries have well developed fisheries.
Thus, such areas as Delaware Bay, Chesapeake Bay, Albemarle Sound
cLnd Pamlico Sound are undesirable locations for disposal sites not only
because of the shoreward transport in the bays smd the restricted circu-
lation in the soxinds, but also because of possible conflict with the fish-
The region east and slightly south of Long Island between the 30
eind 50 fathomi contours, in which fishing vessels are unlikely to be found,
coincides with the region noted previously to be characterized by "sum-
mer stagnation". The lack of fishing effort in this area suggests it as a
possible location for disposal sites. However, the restricted circulation
through the region for about six mionths of the year suggests that during
the times of "stagnation" an accumulation of wastes might occur in the
area to such an extent that adjoining areas might be adversely affected
once circulation is restored following the fall turn-over. At best, re-
gions of this kind shoxild be used as disposal sites only after a careful
study of the year round exchange of water with adjoining areas.
Unfortunately, detailed studies have not been made over the en-
tire Atlantic and Gulf coasts. However, it seems likely that appropriate
information can be obtained, for any proposed site, from state and local
In general the trend is toward the development of fisheries in
deeper and deeper water. At present very little fishing is done beyond
100 fathoms. However, experimented fishing has been carried on out to
1000 fathoms, and indications are that with cin increased demand for fish
and with the developmient of the proper fishing gear, these relatively
deep areas can support a considerable fishing effort.
Submarine Cables .
The disposal of packaged radioactive wastes in areas through
which submarine cables pass will be objectionable from two points of
view. First, there is a possibility of damage to the cable should a dis-
posal container fall directly on it during disposal operations. Second,
during cable maintenance and repair it is common practice to drag
grappling equipment across the ocean bottom to locate the cable and to
bring it to the surface. An accumvdation of disposal containers on the
bottora in such a location not only co^lld interfere with the grappling
operation but might result in the premature rupture of a disposal con-
tainer with possible esqjosure of personnel to measurable radiation.
The location of submarine cables gdong the east coast of the
United States is shown in figures 5 and 6. Proposed disposed sites have
been chosen in areas not crossed by cables.
MAXIMUM RATE OF DISPOSAL
The maximum rate of disposal shoiild be such that permiissible
sea water concentrations are not continuously exceeded. Several
problems arise when this criterion is applied to practical disposal oper-
ations. Firstly, disposal is a discontinuous process and even though
activity will probably leach slowly from disposal containers for quite
some time following rupture of the canister, it is highly unlikely that
the rate of supply of activity to the water will be constant. How then
should we average such a process? Secondly, the flux of contaminant
from a disposed container will decrease as the amount of contaminant
in the container decreases, producing an effect similar to that noted
above. Thirdly, only a small fraction of the total volume of coastal
waters will actually pass directly over a disposal area, although a
much larger fraction of the total volume will be available for dilution.
Most of these problems involve the averaging of concentrations that
will be above and below permissible sea water concentrations for un-
known lengths of time.
We have solved this problem by using the boundaries of the dis-
posal area as the spatial limit beyond which the concentration of con-
taminant should never exceed the permissible sea water concentration.
Using the relationship shown in equation 1, (p. 20) and assuming that a
disposal Ccinister will not contain more than 2 curies (approximately
the limit set by ICC regxilations), we find that for a disposed area 2
miles in diameter (the size of several suggested disposal areas), a dis-
posal rate of between 200 and 300 curies of strontium 90 per year will
keep the concentration below the permissible sea water concentration
at the disposal area boundary. We have chosen 250 curies of strontium
90 or its equivalent.
PRE- USE SURVEY AND MONITORING
A precise evaluation of the quantity of radioactive substances
that will be returned to man as the result of a stated rate of disposal
into any one of the selected areas cannot be given. The recommended
maximuna rate of disposal (250 curies of Sr 90, or its equivalent) will,
even under the most unfavorable combination of circumstances, result
in concentrations of contaminant outside the disposal areas below per-
In order to obtain essenticd information not now available that wdl
permit full utilization of the disposal areas without limiting other uses
of coastal waters, the committee reconnnnends, (1) a survey of any area
prior to disposal operations, and (2) the monitoring of an area subsequent
to the beginning of disposal operations.
Atlantic and east
Mexico coasts C
Cape Hatteras to Nova Scotia
The pre-use survey should be designed to provide the following
(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.
(3) Analysis of bottom sediments for mineral types, especially
for components known to have high absorptive capacities, e.g. the clays.
(4) Analysis of bottoin 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 comraercial 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
(3) the existence of a steady state involving disposal rate and dis-
tribution within the disposal area.
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-
Most of the dumping areas are large: 10x10 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 disposed 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 *.
LOCATION OF SUGGESTED DISPOSAL AREAS
To serve Boston, Massachusetts :
]* 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 6000 ft. "Explosives Dumping Area" 10 x 10 miles square. Chart 71.
To serve Providence, Rhode Island :
2 41°19.7'N 71°063'W 48-90 ft. Rocky ledge known as "Browns Ledge" 10 miles from
Sakonnet, Rhode island. Chart 1210.
2a 41°14'N 7l°25'W 110-126 ft. 2 miles in diameter marked "Danger, Unexploded Depth
Charges, May 1952", 10 miles from Pt. Judith, Rhode Island, Chart 1210.
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 Morehead 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 60 ft. "Dumping Ground (by permit only)" 8.5 miles diameter, 20 miles
136°T from mouth of North Edisto R., Chart 1111.
6a 32°00'N 80°30 'W 60 ft. A poor bottom for fishing. 18 miles from Ft. Screven, Chart 1240.
6b 32°15'N 78°40'W 120 ft. "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 1800 ft. "Explosives Dumping Area, Disused", 83 miles from Mayport,
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 Pensacola - Mobile Bay:
9 29°48'N 87°33'W 138 ft. "Dumping Ground" 35 miles from Pensacola, Chart 1 1 15.
9a 29°48'N 87°10'W 600 ft. Rough ground not suitable for trawling, 34 miles from Pensacola,
9b 29°22'N 87°15'W 1800 ft. "Explosives Dumping Area, Disused", 10 x 10 miles square,
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.
10a 28°30'N 89°10'W 1800 ft. "Explosives Dumping Area, Disused", 10 x 10 miles square,
30 miles from South Pass, Chart 1115.
10b 28°25'N 88°55'W 3600 ft. "Explosives Dumping Area", 10 x 10 miles square, 36 miles
from South Pass, Chart 1115.
To serve Galveston, Texas :
11 29°00'N 94°35'W 54 ft. Southernmost corner of a 5.5 x 1 1 mile rectangle. "Dumping
Ground (by permit only)" 21 miles from Galveston Entrance, Chart 1116.
11a 29°22'N 93°40'W42ft. Rectangular 4 x 9 miles "Dumping Ground (by permit only)"
19 miles from Sabine Pass, Chart 1116.
lib 27°40'N 93°30'W 1500 ft. "Explosives Dumping Area, Disused" 10 x 10 miles square,
100 miles 175°T from Galveston Entrance, Chart 1116.
To serve Corpus Christ!, Texas :
12a 27°15'N 96°00'W 1500 ft. "Explosives Dumping Area, Disused", 10 x 10 miles square,
65 miles 122°T from Aransas Pass, Chart 1117.
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)
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
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.