EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Radiation Programs
Washington, D.C. 20460
EPA 520/1-87-013
February 1987
Radiation
Proceedings of a Meeting
on Ocean Modeling Efforts
at EPA
-------
-------
PROCEEDINGS OF A MEETING
ON
OCEAN MODELING EFFORTS AT EPA
February 10, 1987
Kung-Wei Yen
Meeting Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Radiation Programs
Washington, DC
-------
-------
PREFACE
A meeting on the "Ocean Modeling Efforts at EPA" was
convened on February 10, 1987, at EPA Headquarters in
Washington, DC. More than forty Environmental Protection Agency
scientific and managerial staff, and scientists from the private
sector attended the one-day meeting.
This document was developed from conference tapes and view
graphs provided by the speakers. It includes ten presentations
on Modeling Efforts that address the problems encountered,
methodology used, assumptions made and results obtained (or
expected). Verbatim transcripts are not included in these
proceedings. Detailed information about individual study
objectives, findings, and policy implications may be obtained
from the appropriate speakers. Addresses for all speakers and
attendees are provided in the document.
Copies of this document are being distributed to all
speakers and participants. A limited number of additional
copies of the document are available for distribution from the
Office of Radiation Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Washington, DC 20460.
- 111 -
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introductory Remarks:
o David Janes, Director
Analysis and Support Division, ORP 1
o Bob Zeller, Senior Advisor
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection/OW 2
II. Background and Perspectives:
Kung-Wei Yen
Analysis and Support Division, ORP 4
III.Presentations:
(I) Modeling Effort at Environmental Research Laboratory-
Narragansett for OW and ORD: Three Transport Models
-For Assessing Environmental Impact of Deep Ocean
Disposal of Waste- John Paul 6
(II) Modeling Effort at Applied Science Associates, Inc. for
OPPE/EPA: Ocean Disposal Risk Assessment Model System-
Mark Reed 15
(III) Modeling Effort at ICF, Inc., for OSWER: A modified
version of Ocean Disposal Risk Assessment Model for
Solid Waste- Joseph Karam 23
(IV) Modeling Effort at Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories
for OMEP/OW: Atmospheric Transport of Pollutants From
Incineration-at-sea- Richard Ecker 27
(V) Monitoring Effort at ERL-Narragansett, RI: Work Conducted
Through Newport, Oregon Field Station: Ocean Outfall
Discharge Model for OMEP/OW- John Paul and Don Baumgartner ... 33
(VI) Modeling Effort at Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories
for ORP: A Three-dimensional Flow, Energy, Salinity,
Sediment and Contaminant Transport (FLESCOT) Model for Ocean
Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste- Yasuo Onishi 37
(VII) Deep-Ocean Current Measurement Studies Conducted in The
Atlantic by SAIC for ORP- Peter Hamilton 50
(VIII)Hydrographic Data Retrieved From National Archive Centers;
Kung-Wei Yeh 59
(IX) Global Modeling Effort at Sandia National Laboratories
for DOE: Mark A Box Model For Subseabed Disposal of
High-Level Radioactive Waste- Mel Marietta 65
(X) Field Data Collection and Analysis by SAIC for MMS/DOI
MASAR Project- Peter Hamilton 71
IV. Closing Remarks- Kung-Wei Yeh 88
V. List of Attendees and Speakers in the Meeting 89
VI. Appendix: Current Measurements Collected for ORP at the Farallon Is-
lands Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site, 1975 and 1977-78.
A-l
v -
-------
-------
I. Introductory Remarks
By David Janes, Director
Analysis and Support Division
Office of Radiation Programs
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Ocean
Modeling Efforts meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to
discuss ocean modeling efforts in EPA, past and present, with
the intent of identifying some common approaches that will aid
us in developing regulations.
The Office of Radiation Programs has some specific modeling
needs. If we get a request to issue a permit for the disposal
of low-level radioactive waste in the ocean, we are required,
among other things, to prepare a Radioactive Material Disposal
Impact Assessment (RMDIA) as specified in amendments to the
Ocean Dumping Act of January 6, 1983.
The RMDIA has two goals. The first is to assess the effects
on human health and welfare and the marine environment of solid
or solidified low-level radioactive waste disposed of in
containers that remain intact during and after disposal. The
second is to assess the same impacts if the containers should
fail. Most of the scenarios for the disposal of low-level
radioactive waste assume containers are placed on the deep ocean
floor and examine the potential for dispersion from that point.
Conversely, many of you here today are interested in modeling
the fate of material disposed on the ocean surface. It seems to
me that if you look at long term transport, i.e., over long
times and distances, there has to be some commonality between
the dispersion of materials originally deposited on the ocean
floor and those deposited upon the ocean surface. So there may
be some commonality among models that could be combined to make
the whole greater than the sum of the individual parts. I
noticed from the agenda that this is one of the subjects you
will address today.
This initial effort .will help us learn what others are doing
and how these efforts relate to what each of us does.
Hopefully, today's meeting will provide a basis for future
discussions and some products that will be useful to us all.
- 1 -
-------
Introductory Remarks
By Bob Zeller, Senior Science Advisor
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP)
Office of Water
Tudor Davies, Director of OMEP, in the Fall of 1984, asked
me two questions relevant to today's meeting:
(1) Are mathematical models of transport, fate, and effects
potentially useful for decision making in our ocean disposal
programs?
(2) Are existing, validated models available that will meet
our needs? If not, are potentially useful models being
developed?
My answer to the first question was yes and to the second
question, a qualified yes. First, validated mathematical models
are potentially useful in two related decision areas-- decisions
on ocean disposal site designation and permit issuance and
decisions on ocean disposal compliance with regulatory
requirements and human health and environmental objectives. A
key feature of our planned approach to decision making in both
areas is the prediction and verification of pollutant transport,
fate, and effects. Once we are confident of our predictive
capabilities for a given disposal site and circumstances, we can
streamline our data collection requirements dramatically and,
thereby, save substantial amounts of dollars and time. Thus,
applicable and validated math models will be essential for
successful implementation of our decision making approach.
My answer to the second question is a qualified yes because,
although there are a number of analytic and numerical models in
existence, they are either not strictly applicable to our
decision making needs, or they are not validated for our ocean
disposal sites and circumstances. However, test applications
and validation of available models are underway and additional,
potentially useful models are under development.
- 2 -
-------
My participation here today signals our keen interest in
both the validation status and applicability of available
mathematical models as well as the applicability of models that
are under development. With this brief introduction, I am
looking forward to the presentations by the several modeling
experts on today's meeting agenda.
- 3 -
-------
II. Background and Perspectives
By Kung-Wei Yeh
Environmental Studies and Statistics Branch, ASD
Office of Radiation Programs
The exploration and scientific studies of the oceans have
always been closely connected with practical demands. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has had a continuing
interest in the study of the oceans since the Agency's inception
in 1970. Various offices within the Agency are evaluating the
ocean as an alternative to land disposal for some toxic and
hazardous materials as well as low-level radioactive wastes.
The objectives for ocean disposal within program offices may
vary but all are similar in that ocean processes are not subject
to political, economic, and/or national boundaries.
It happens occasionally in many large organizations, such as
EPA, that the left hand does not always know what the right hand
is doing. The ocean environment is large, complicated, and
subject to many orders of magnitude greater uncertainty than
other regions of the earth (Figure 1). To share with other
offices the information and experience gained and to exchange
concepts and ideas in dealing with a complicated and less known
ocean environment, a meeting seems both necessary and valuable.
This approach may mutually benefit all program offices with
similar interests in the ocean as a permanent repository or
dilution/dispersion medium.
Ocean disposal associated with physical processes ranges
from small scale turbulence, such as initial mixing of sewage
discharged from outfalls, to global scale transport/dispersion
of materials not readily biodegraded. The meeting held on
February 10, 1987, covered a wide range of physical processes of
interest to EPA program offices. The Office of Radiation
Programs and Office of Water have conducted monitoring and ocean
process studies for low-level radioactive waste, and municipal
and industrial wastes respectively since the Congress enacted
the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
Recently, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response began
considering ocean disposal as an option for some toxic materials
which are restricted by law from being deposited on land. So
there is a growing interest in ocean processes by the Agency,
particularly with the new Agency stress on evaluating disposal
alternatives.
- 4 -
-------
In addition to the high environmental uncertainties of
ocean disposal (Figure 1), the costs of ocean monitoring and
research are also high. To reduce the costs of monitoring in
the ocean, a creditable and defensible ocean transport model may
provide reasonable estimates which will help to delineate and
assess the consequences of pollutants disposed of in the ocean.
This is particularly true for monitoring the deep-ocean bottom
environment with depth greater than 4,000 meters.
Recently, modeling methods have been used by the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to numerically define
high-level radioactive wastes which are prohibited from disposal
in the ocean, and by the Nuclear Energy Agency (NBA) of the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to
evaluate the continued suitability of the disposal site for
low-level radioactive waste in the Northeast Atlantic. A
modeling approach certainly is not perfect. However, it
provides reasonably good predictions for pollutants carried out
and dispersed by ocean processes.
Physical boundaries and current systems vary from one site
to another. Hence, the methodologies and assumptions vary for
different problems under various physical conditions. For a
specific disposal site, care must be taken in selecting a
methodology and assumptions for developing the model. In the
presentations of February 10, 1987, each speaker has identified
the problem which needed to be solved, the methodology used,
assumptions made and results obtained (or expected).
It is hoped that this meeting will serve as an initial step
to consolidate the growing interests in ocean modeling processes
throughout the Agency, and to share the experience, knowledge,
and results obtained and to identify areas of cooperation and
collaboration on modeling and data collection efforts among the
interested program offices.
UNCERTAINTY FACTOR (ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE!
10
Figure 1. BNVHtONMEHTAL UNCERTAINTY
(Courtesy of ERL-Narragansett)
- 5 -
-------
III. Presentations
(I) DEEP-OCEAN MODELING EFFORT AT ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
LABORATORY - NARRAGANSETT, RI
By John Paul
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
Narragansett, RI
GENERAL PROBLEMS - To estimate risk assessment under the
following three cases based on aquatic exposure and effects
components, and exposure/dose component for human health:
A. CASE ONE:
1. Problem to be solved- calculate upper bound estimate
for upper mixed layer.
2. Methodology used- two-dimensional model
(a) For near- and far-field: used time dependent, uniform
framework, waste load allocation approach, and "upper
bound" determination for effects endpoints to estimate
whole sludge toxicity, marine water quality criteria
and tissue residues (FDA levels).
(b) For short-term model: used time dependent and
individual barge plume to determine short-term impacts
with release zone method (RZM) at T = 4 hours, time
scale up to 1 week and spatial scale up to the size of
the site.
(c) For long-term model: used long-term, time averaged
concentrations of sum of all individual dumps to
estimate chronic impacts with time scale up to 30 days
and spatial scale up to 300 km.
3. Assumptions made
(a) Two-dimensional in horizontal plane, uniformly mixed in
upper mixed layer,
- 6 -
-------
(b) Contaminants completely conserved in water column,
(c) No particulate settling,
(d) No exchange across air-sea interface,
(e) Treat total concentration of contaminants,
(f) All contaminants biologically available,
(g) No explicit inclusion of Gulf Stream Rings,
(h) Gulf Stream is downstream sink,
(i) Mean flow and dispersion are available from long-term
current records.
4- Results obtained- The long-term model has been
successfully applied to the following studies:
(a) Deep-water Municipal Disposal Site (Figure 1-1),
(b) Sludge loading from NY/NJ municipalities,
(c) Maximum contaminant loading from NY plants (PCB)
(Figure 1-2),
(d) Composite New Jersey whole sludge toxicity,
(e) Standard application factor,
(f) Water quality criteria for PCB,
(g) FDA tolerance levels for PCB.
B. CASE TWO:
1. Problem to be solved- estimate the benthic flow of
sinking sewage sludge particles at offshore disposal sites
for the preliminary assessment of potential for benthic
impacts due to midshelf or offshelf disposal of sewage
sludge and contributions to the design of a monitoring
strategy for the measurement of contaminant accumulations
on the sea floor.
2. Methodology used- two-dimensional layered model to
calculate upper bound estimate for sediment compartment.
3. Assumptions made
(a) Sewage sludge settling velocity data are available,
(b) Current meter statistics from a transect off the coast
of Virginia Beach (MASAR program) are available,
(c) Bottom topography was modeled with a cross-shelf
profile and without along shelf variation,
(d) Bottom boundary condition was treated as completely
absorbing (i.e., resuspension is not considered),
(e) No mass losses due to degradation.
- 7 -
-------
4. Results obtained
(a) Predicted peak carbon fluxes are less than 0.1 g/m2/d
due to midshelf disposal and 0.005 g/m2/d due to
offshelf disposal (Figure 1-3).
(b) Identified route for transport of pollutants that may
gradually accumulate in sediments and benthic species.
(c) Identified a critical need to improve our understanding
of processes affecting vertical transport.
(d) Proposed an array of sediment traps be deployed along
the 2,000-m isobath and the outer shelf to determine
potential sites of benthic impact.
(e) Identified a need to obtain baseline data on current
levels of pollutants in tissues of benthic shelf edge
fish (Figure 1-4).
C. CASE THREE:
1. Problem to be solved- assess the environmental impact
of deep-ocean disposal of wastes.
2. Methodology used- a three-dimensional model to estimate
concentration in water column and sediment in which
Lagrangian coordinates are used for particle trajectories
and Eulerian coordinates for contaminant concentrations.
3. Assumption made- fluid is incompressible and Newtonian.
4. Results obtained
(a) Provided more realistic estimate of concentration for
entire water column and flux to the sediments at cost of
more computational time and efforts.
(b) Need monitoring plan for model validation.
- 8 -
-------
Bibliography on Deep-Ocean Modeling at ERL-Narragansett
J.F. Paul, H.A. Walker, and V.J. Bierman, Jr. 1983.
Probabilistic approach for the determination of the potential
area of influence for waste disposal at the 106-Mile Ocean
Disposal Site. Appendix A in: 106 Mile Site characterization
update, J.B. Pearce, D.C. Miller, and C. Berman (editors), NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-26, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Northeast Fisheries Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts.
T.P. O'Connor, H.A. Walker, J.F. Paul, and V.J. Bierman, Jr.
1985. A strategy for monitoring of contaminant distributions
resulting from proposed sewage sludge disposal at the 106-Mile
Ocean Disposal Site. Marine Environmental Research, Vol. 16, pp.
127-150. r
H.A. Walker, J.A. Nocito, J.F. Paul, V.J. Bierman, Jr., and
J.H. Gentile. 1985. Methods for waste load allocation of
municipal sewage sludge at the 106-Mile Ocean Disposal Site.
Report prepared for Criteria and Standards Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 113 pages.
J.C. Prager, V.J. Bierman, Jr., J.F. Paul, and J.S. Bonner.
1986. Sampling the oceans for pollution: a risk assessment
approach to evaluating low-level radioactive waste disposal at
sea. Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials Report,
Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 2-26.
J.F. Paul, H.A. Walker, and J.A. Nocito. 1986.
Lagrangian-Eulerian approach to modeling contaminants. In:
Water Forum '86: World Water Issues in Evolution, M. Karamouz,
G.R. Baumli, and W.J. Brick (editors), American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York, pp. 1301-1308.
J.S. Bonner, C.D. Hunt, J.F. Paul, and V.J. Bierman. 1986.
Prediction of vertical transport of low-level radioactive
Middlesex soil at a deep-ocean disposal site. Report'No.
EPA 520/1-86-016, Office of Radiation Programs,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 60 pages.
J. Lipton, C. Menzie and R. Wells. 1986. Ocean disposal of
municipal sewage sludge: a comparative analysis of mid-shelf and
deep ocean dumpsites. Report prepared for Office of Policy
Analysis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Abt Associates
Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, 82 pages.
Development of risk assessment methodology for ocean disposal of
municipal sludge. Report No. ECAO-CIN-492, 1986. Prepared for
Office of Water Regulations and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency by Environmental Criteria and Assessment
Office, Cincinnati.
-------
J.F. Paul, V.J. Bierman, Jr., H.A. Walker, and J.H. Gentile. In
Press. Application of a hazard assessment research strategy for
waste disposal at the 106-Mile Ocean Disposal site. In:
Oceanic Processes in Marine Pollution, Vol. 4, D.W. Hood,
A. Schoener,and P.K. Park (editors), Kreiger Publishing Co.
J.H. Gentile, V.J. Bierman, Jr., J.F. Paul, H.A. Walker, and
D.C. Miller. in Press. Hazard assessment research strategy for
ocean disposal: concepts and case studies. In: Oceanic
Processes in Marine Pollution, Vol. 3,. M.A. Champ and P.K. Park
(editors), Kreiger Publishing Co.
H.A. Walker, J.F. Paul, and V.J. Bierman, Jr. In Press. A
convective-dispersive transport model for wastes disposed of at
the 106-Mile Ocean Disposal Site. In: Oceanic Processes in
Marine Pollution, Vol. 6, D.J. Baumgartner and I.W. DuedalT"
(editors),Kreiger Publishing Co.
H.A. Walker, J.F. Paul, and V.J. Bierman, Jr. In Press. Methods
for waste load allocation of municipal sewage sludge at the
106-Mile Ocean Diposal Site. Envi ronmental Toxicology and
Chemistry.
- 10 -
-------
76'0-0'
42*0.0'-'
74*0.0'
72*0.0'
40 * 0.0 -
38*0.0-
36'0.0'-
12-Mile Site
Hudson Canyon
106-Mile Site
Depth Contours
2000 meters
1000 meters
200 meters
100 meters
70*0.0'
'-42*0.0'
-40*0.0'
-38'0.0'
76'0.0'
74*0-0'
72*0.0'
-.36 0.0'
70*0.0'
Figure i-i. Deep-water Municipal Disposal Site
- 11 -
-------
-77.
-77.
-75.
LONGITUDE
-73.
-69.
•42.
TISSUE
RESIDUE
CONC.
IPFNI
0.08
O.OS
0.04
0.03
3*.
-73.
LONGITUDE
-71
-69.
Figure 1-2. Maximum contaminated loading from NY plants (PCB)
- 12 -
-------
rv\
0.0
600.0 •
G 1600.0 ••
v/
Q.
2400.0 ••
3233.3
4000,3 A
I
DISTANCE OFFSHORE CKMJ
180.
240.
300.
10
100. 150. 200.
DISTANCE QFFSMOKE (KM*
259.
300.
Figure 1-3. Predicted peak carbon fluxes
-------
PCB - TISSUE
o
cr
oc
cc
en
10.0-
0.0
T 1 r
50. 100. 150. 200. 250. 300
DISTANCE OONNSTRERH (KM)
Figure 1-4. Baseline data on current levels of pollutants
in tissues of benthic shelf edge finish
- 14 -
-------
(II) MODELING EFFORT AT APPLIED SCIENCE ASSOCIATED, INC. (ASA)
FOR OFFICE OF POLICY, PLANNING AND EVALUATION:
By Mark Reed
Applied Science Associated, Inc.
Narragansett, RI
Problems to be solved- assess the ecological effects of
various hypothetical ocean disposal policies pursued over
several years.
Methodology used;- Ocean Disposal Risk Assessment Model
(Figure II-l).
(a) Pollutant transport is simulated by a two-layer
hydrodynamic transport model covering the area of
interest.
(b) Using exposure-response relationships between
contaminants and organisms or trophic levels, plus
food-web linkages, ecosystem effects are estimated in
.terms of biomass reductions and bioaccumulation.
(c) Harvesting rates give a measure of potential human
exposure levels.
Assumptions made
(a) Sediment resuspension and transport will only occur at
depths less than 100 m from bottom where wave and
storm-induced effects become important;
(b) Current velocities in the site and its vicinities are
available from either hydrodynamic models or empirical
measurements;
(c) Ultimate disposition from this mode is either to the
sea floor, out the open boundaries, or via decay
processes;
(d) In the long term, the various trophic components of a
given ecosystem can be modeled as homogeneously
distributed in the horizontal dimension over a
specified set of hydrodynamic grid cells;
- 15 -
-------
(ej The generic, or long-term, ecosystem can be
represented by trophic compartment;
(£) Dumping rate is constant. Hydrodynamic transport
field is steady. Pollutant decay rate has been set
to zero.
4. Results obtained- The model has been applied to estuarine,
coastal, and offshore areas of the Gulf of Mexico (Figure
II-2) and New York Bight (Figures II-3 and II-4). PCS has
been selected as the sewage sludge constituent of interest
for a policy time horizon of six years (Figure II-4) , and
twenty years (Figure II-5).
Sensitivity analysis: sensitivity of physical
parameters to pollutant-transport estimate.
a. Physical parameters were investigated for their
influence to results:
o horizontal eddy dispersion coefficient,
o resuspension recurrence rate,
o particulate settling rates,
o steady-state advective velocity field,
o sediment bioturbation rate.
All simulations were run for 2 years with a neutrally
buoyant pollutant and no vertical diffusion. It
assumes a pollutant loading (or release) rate of 7.6
Kg/day of PCB.
b. Sensitivity of results to ecosystem parameters were
investigated:
o standing stocks,
o annual primary productivity,
o half-saturation constant for nitrogen, uptake rate,
Kn,
o upwelling rate.
Results show that standing stocks and annual primary
productivity are not sensitive to change in the
parameters related to light extension and light limited
growth rate.
- 16 -
-------
Sensitivity of results to pollutant exposure-
biological response relationship mortality rate is
a function of threshold concentration, Co, below
which mortality is zero and the concentration
LC5Q, at which 50% mortality is induced.
Conclusions:
o The most important transport-model characteristic
for determining pollutant fate is the advective
velocity field. Correct representation of the
currents is of particular importance for near-shore
releases.
o Of second importance is horizontal dispersion of
the pollutant mass in the water column. The model
is fairly sensitive to dispersion coefficient
values in the range of 100-500 m2/s.
o Model results are much less sensitive to parameters
such as assimilation, depuration and pollutant-
induced mortality rates; for a given pollutant
exposure level, ecosystems are most sensitive to
trophic structure and predation interactions.
- 17 -
-------
POLLUTANT
LOADING
INFORMATION
CO
I
TWO-LAYER
OCEAN
TRANSPORT
MODEL
SEDIMENT
CONTAMINATION
MODEL
EXPOSURE
PARTICULATE
ADSORPTION
AND
SETTLING
SPAWNING
AND
PREDAT10N
EXPOSURE
PELAGIC
ECOSYSTEM
COMPONENTS
BIOLOGICAL
RATE
PARAMETERS
FECAL MATERIAL,
SETTLING,
RECRUITMENT
BENTHIC
ECOSYSTEM
COMPONENTS
Figure II-l
Model system interaction schematic.
-------
0 200 400
KILOMETERS
30°
-. 20'
100° 90° 80° 70°
Figure II-2 . Bathymetry, coastline, and model grid outline for the Gulf of Mexico and U.S. east coast (depths in meters).
-------
ro
o
Concentrations in ng/m
Figure II-3. Modeled PCS concentrations averaged over the upper 100
meters of the water column at the end of simulation.
-------
I
ro
Concentrations in yg/m
Figure II-4. Modeled sea-floor distributions of PCB from sewage sludge
dumping at the 106 site at the end of simulation year 6.
-------
HO - Hudson outflow
SSD - Sewage sludge dump
MD - Hud dump
(a)
LEGEND
* TOTAL MASS
B UASS ON BOTTOM
O UASS IN WATER COLUMN
« UASS OUT OPEN BOUNDARY
(b)
o
a 10 12
TIME (yrs)
Figure II-5. (a) Bottom PCB concentrations at the end of 20 years for twice the
expected resuspension frequency; (b) Dynamic balance for twice the
expected resuspension frequency.
- 22 -
-------
(Ill) MODELING EFFORT AT ICF, INC FOR OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND
EMERGENCY RESPONSE/OSW: A MODIFIED VERSION OF OCEAN
DISPOSAL RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL
By Joseph Karam
ICF, Inc.
Washington, DC
!• Problems to be solved- compare risks from land disposal to
risks from ocean disposal and ocean incineration
approaches as an impact of land disposal restriction.
2. Methodology used- Compare human health risks calculated
from Ocean Disposal Assessment Model with dose response
curves used by the land disposal risk assessment model, or
RCRA RisK-Cost Analysis Model (WET model) and Linear
Location Model.
3. Assumptions made
(a) Steady state release,
(b) Rate of release equal to the average dumping rate for
ocean disposal and that for ocean incineration equal to
the sum of stack emission releases and expected fugitive
and accidental releases in open ocean for ocean
incineration,
(c) No chemical decay,
(d) Standard average individual seafood consumption equal to
14.3 g/day, and
(e) Population exposed is equal to total annual catch in
contaminated media divided by average annual individual
consumption.
4- Results obtained- the method has been applied to DWD-106
site (Figures III-1 and III-2) for:
(a) Human health risks:
1. Expected number of weighted cases and average
individual risk,
- 23 -
-------
2. Risk to the most exposed individual,
3. Constituent and medium of concern.
(b) Environmental risks;
1. Ecosystem damage functions,
2. Weighted volume of water and weighted area of
sediments affected,
3. Damages to the most exposed water column and sediment
ecosystems,
4. constituent and medium of concern.
NOTE: This methodology has not been tested or validated.
- 24 -
-------
Largest Contaminated Areas of the Ocean:
Chemicals with Low KPCSS Value*
!-
Continental Shelf Limit -
is w 7Q"-W fispw x- *
*KpCss 106-mile site
Figure III-l
- 25 -
-------
Largest Contaminated Areas of the Ocean:
Chemicals with High Kj£ss Value*
Continental Shelf Limit TT
75 w
70 w
* KpCss > 1
— Contour delimiting largest contaminated water areas
.... Contour delimiting largest contaminated sediment areas
65 w
60 w
<8> 106-mile site
Figure III-l
- 26 -
-------
(IV) MODELING EFFORT AT BATTELLE PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORIES
FOR OFFICE OF MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION/OW:
By Richard Ecker
Battelle Pacific Northwest laboratories
Richland, WA
Problem to be solved- provide a tool in assessing the
environmental impact of incineration at sea in order to
screen ocean incineration permit applications.
Methodology used- use INSEA model to predict pollutant
concentration in atmosphere and ocean environment. The
INSEA model consists of INSEA Atmospheric Transport
Submodel, Ocean Transport Submodel, and Criteria Evaluation
Submodel.
INSEA Atmospheric Submodel (Figure IV-1 and IV-2)
(1) Assumptions
o Stationary ship or ship moving along a straight
line.
o Wind speed and direction are constant.
(2) Model considers
o 3-D Gaussian plume concentration,
o Wind speed,
o Plume rise,
o Wet and dry deposition.
INSEA Oceanic Submodel (Figure IV-3 and IV-4)
(1) Assumptions
o Steady-state velocity profile.
o Longitudinal and lateral dispersion are small
compared to advection.
o Instantaneous mixing of contaminants at water
surface.
o Current is in the same direction as wind.
(2) Model considers
o Longitudinal advection from regional and wind
induced currents,
o Vertical dispersion.
- 27 -
-------
3.
Criteria Evaluation Submodel
(1) Model considers;
o Acute water quality criteria along centerline of
atmospheric plume,
o Chronic criteria along 100-m offset line,
o Destruction efficiency,
o Incinerator feed rate.
(2) Model provides;
o Allowable contaminant concentrations in
incineration feed.
Results obtained- The Gaussian plume expression of INSEA
model has been applied to incineration-at-sea over the Gulf
of Mexico (Figures IV-3 and IV-4).
- 28 -
-------
I
to
H-
CW
c
n
to
H
-------
Length of
Ocean Simulated
Vertical Cross-Section of Grid with N Columns and M Layers
Figure IV-2 . INSEA Atmospheric Submodel
Thickness
of Layer 1
Thickness
of Layer M!
- 30 -
-------
to
H-
TO
c
1-1
ID
H
-------
CD
„_>
ID
O
*>
C
O
N
._>
C.
O
Figure iv-4 . INSEA Oceanic Submodel
- 32 -
-------
(V) MODELING EFFORT AT ERL-NARRAGANSETT, RI: WORK CONDUCTED
THROUGH NEWPORT, OREGON FIELD STATION, CERL.
By John Paul and Don Baumgartner
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
Narragansett, RI
1. Problem to be solved- estimate waste discharged from ocean
outfall.
2. Methodology used- empirically derived integral models for
plume dynamics (Figure V-l).
3. Assumptions made-
(a)unstratified crossflow,
(b)steady state,
(c)ocean outfall effluent in Gaussian distribution
both in vertical and lateral directions.
Table V-l lists a summary of numerical model
characteristics.
4. Results will be used to:
(a)Assess impact of ocean outfall discharges;
1. Macrobenthic sampling strategy to evaluate outfall
permits,
2. Sediment contamination, toxicity, and macrobenthic
community impact near ocean outfalls,
3. Depth profiles of sediment toxicity near ocean
outfalls.
(b)Develop sediment quality criteria for marine and
estuarine ecosystems.
(c)Define the discharge conditions to protect marine
ecosystems.
Note: the model has been applied to investigate the sediment
toxicity in Eagle Harbor, WA and San Francisco Bay, CA.
Table V-2 lists the major research products of application
of the model.
- 33 -
-------
w
-p-
Figure V—1
Buoyant plume trajectory 1n an unstratIfled crossflow.
-------
TABLE V-l SUMMARY OF NUMERICAL MODEL CHARACTERISTICS
w
Oi
Parameter
Portb
Discharge anglec
Density profile
Current speed
Current angle
relative to the
dlffuserd
UPLUME
single
-50 to 900
arbitrary
no
n/a
UOUTPLM
single
-50 to 900
arbitrary
constant
with depth
assumes 900
UMERGE
multiple
-50 to 900
arbitrary
arbitrary
assumes 90°
UOKHDENa
multiple
-50 to 1300
arbitrary
arbitrary
450-1350
ULINE
slot/closely
spaced
assumes 900
arbitrary
arbitrary
00-1800
a For a single port discharge the current angle may be 1n the range of 00 to 1800. For an
?!?n 49re!:er than 90? the Pr°9ram converts 1t to the supplementary angle. (Note: 00 and
1800 give the same results). rr *
J All the models except ULINE reduce the data to a single port discharge. UPLUME and UOUTPLM
detect merging of adjacent plumes and alert the user, but do not account for this In the remainder
of the calculations whereas UMERGE and UDKHDEN do. ULINE converts the data to a slot discharge.
J The discharge angle limits are those allowed by the subroutines LIMITS 1n each of the programs.
They are not necessarily the theoretical limits associated with these models. Caution should
be exercised when using the models for angles beyond these limits.
d 90° I* Perpendicular to the dlffuser. At a discharge angle of QO (horizontal) and a current
angle of 900, the discharge and the current are parallel and In the same direction.
-------
Table V-2.
MAJOR RESEARCH PRODUCTS
I, OCEAN OUTFALL EFFLUENTS: DISCHARGE CONDITIONS TO PROTECT MARINE
ECOSYSTEMS,
A. EFFECTS OF CURRENT DIRECTION ON OCEAN OUTFALL MIXING RATES,
B, EFFECT OF INTERSTITIAL CHEMICAL ENVIRONMENT ON THE
POLLUTANT COMPOSITION OF SEDIMENT-WATER MIXTURES,
C, EFFECT OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS AND NATURAL
FLOCCULATION ON SEWAGE PARTICULATE SETTLING RATES,
D, FIELD VALIDATION OF INITIAL DILUTION MODELS,
II, IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF OCEAN OUTFALL DISCHARGES,
A, MACROBENTHIC SAMPLING STRATEGY TO EVALUATE OUTFALL PERMITS-,
B. SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION, TOXICITY, AND MACROBENTHIC COMMUNITY
IMPACTS NEAR OCEAN OUTFALLS,
C, DEPTH PROFILES OF SEDIMENT TOXICITY NEAR OCEAN OUTFALLS,
III, SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA FOR MARINE..AND ESTUARINE ECOSYSTEMS,
A, EQUILIBRIUM PARTITIONING MODEL AND THE TOXICITY OF METALS
AND NONPOLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN SEDIMENT,
B, TOXICOLOGICAL INTERACTIONS BETWEEN SEDIMENT CONTAMINANTS,
C, SEDIMENT -BIOASSAY PROTOCOLS.
1, PROTOCOL FOR Low SALINITY, ESTUARINE SEDIMENT
2, EFFECTS OF NATURAL SEDIMENT PROPERTIES ON
RHEPOXYNIUS.
D, SEDIMENT TOXICITY SURVEYS IN EAGLE HARBOR, WA AND
SAN FRANCISCO BAY, CA,
- 36 -
-------
(VI) MODELING EFFORT AT BATTELLE PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORIES
FOR THE OFFICE OF RADIATION PROGRAMS, EPA
By Yasuo Onishi
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories
Richland, WA
!• Problems to be solved- (1) analyze the environmental
impact of proposed ocean disposal operation upon human health
and marine life and assess the resulting environmental
conditions if disposed containers fail to contain the
radioactive wastes as required in the Radioactive Materials
Disposal Impact Assessment (RMDIA) of PL 97-424 of 1983, and
(2) provide the (numerical) dose/concentration levels to
compare with that of comparable land disposal options as
required by the London Dumping Convention and U.S. Ocean
Disposal Regulations.
2- Methodology used- to meet the above requirements a three-
dimensional time dependent Flow, Energy, Salinity, Sediment
and Contaminant Transport Model (FLESCOT) of Battelle Pacific
Northwest Laboratories (PNL) is intended to simulate the
extremely complicated ocean current system which includes
Gulf Stream - meander, cold and warm core rings and shelf edge
exchange processes in the Northwest Atlantic region of EPA's
2800-m, 3800-m and DWD-106 sites (Figure VI-1). Figure VI-2
shows the bathymetry of the Eastern Continental Shelf which
includes the region of interest.
3. Assumptions made
(a) fluid is incompressible,
(b) only gravitational and Coriolis forces are included as
body forces,
(c) free surface effects are considered,
(d) fluid is Newtonian,
(e) equations for turbulent flow are time-averaged,
(f) the Boussinesq approximation holds (i.e., density
changes only very little with height),
(g) particulate contaminant concentrations are linearly
related to dissolved contaminants,
(h) sediment and particulate (sediment-sorbed) contaminants
are divided into three size fractions of cohesive and
noncohesive sediments, and'
(i) contaminant decay/degradation are first order reactions.
- 37 -
-------
4. Results Expected
FLESCOT model can predict:
o sediment concentrations in water column for each of
three sediment size fractions,
o sediment size distributions within ocean bottom,
o bottom elevation changes due to sediment deposition
and resuspension,
o dissolved contaminant concentrations for each of three
sediment size fractions in water column,
o sediment-sorbed contaminant concentrations for each
of three sediment size fractions within ocean bottom,
o distributions of nonhomogeneous but isotropic
turbulent kinetic energy and eddy viscosity or
dispersion coefficients.
This model has been applied to 106-Km reach of the Hudson
River between Chelsea and the mouth of the river, Figures VI-3,
-4, -5 and -6, and Strait of Juan of de Fuca, WA, Figures VI-7,
-8f -9, and -10. It has also been applied to Buzzards Bay, MA,
Beaufort Sea, AK, and Sequims Bay, WA.
The FLESCOT model will be applied to EPA's 2800-m, 3800-m
and DWD-106 sites off the New Jersey-Maryland coasts in the
future.
- 38 -
-------
REFERENCES
Hoffman, F. O., D. L. Shaeffer, C. W. Miller and C. T. Garten,
Jr. 1978. Proceedings of a Workshop on The Evaluation of Models
Used for the Environmental Assessment of Radionuclide Releases.
Gatlinburg, TN." ~~~ •
Onishi, Y. , D. L. Schreiber and R. B. Codell. 1980.
"Mathematical Simulation of Sediment and Radionuclide Transport
in the Clinch River, Tennessee." Contaminants and Sediments,
R. A. Baker (Ed.), Vol. 1, Ch. 18, Ann Arbor Science Publishers,
Inc., Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 393-406.
Onishi, Y. 1981. "Sediment-Contaminant Transport Model." Journal
of Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. HY9, Proceedings No.
16505, pp. 1089-1107,
Onishi, Y., R. J. Serne, E. M. Arnold, C. E. Cowan and F. L.
Thompson. 1981a. Critical Review: Radionuclide Transport,
Sediment Transport, and Water Quality Mathematical Modeling; and
Radionuclide Adsorption/Desorption Mechanisms.NUREG/CR-1322,
PNL-2901, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA.
Onishi, Y., S. M. Brown, A. R. Olsen and M. A. Parkhurst. 1981b.
Chemical Migration and Risk Assessment Methodology."
Proceedings of the Conference on Environmental Engineering, ASCE,
Atlanta, GA, pp. 165-172. ~~~
Onishi, Y., and D. S. Trent. 1982. Mathematical Simulation of
Sediment and Radionuclide Transport in~Estuaries -- Testing of
Three-Dimensional Radionuclide Transport Modeling for the Hudson
River Estuary, New York^NUREG/CR-2423, PNL-4109, Pacific
Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA.
Onishi, Y., and F. L. Thompson. 1982. Evaluation of Long-Term
Radionuclide Transport and Accumulation in the Coastal WateTI
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA.
Jinks, S. M. and M.E. Wrenn. 1975. "Radiocesium Transport in the
Hudson River Estuary," Chapter 11 of Environmental Toxicity of
Aquatic Radionuclides: Models and Mechanism. Edited by M W
Miller and J. N. Stannard.
Wrenn, M.E., G. j. Lauer, S. Jinks, L. Hairr, J. Mauro, B.
Friedman, D. Wohlgemuth, J. Hernandez and Gary, R'e. 1972.
Radioecological Studies of the Hudson River. Progress Report to
Con. Edison Company of New York.
- 39 -
-------
EASTERN CONTINENTAL
B2 80 78 7& 7^ 72 70 58 56
Figure VI-1 A map of the Eastern Continental Shelf showing the
computational grid and the subdomains.
D: DWD-106 site.
A: 2800-m site.
B: 3800-m site.
- 40 -
-------
latitude
BOTTOM
TOPOGRAPHY
68 66
longitude
Figure VI-2
A map of the Eastern Continental Shelf showing the
bathymetry of the region.
D: DWD-106 site.
A: 2'800-m site.
B: 3800-m site.
- 41 -
-------
MOHAWK RIVER
GREEN ISLAND
TROY
RENSSELAER
•CASTLETON
ON HUDSON
(RK
\
I
^i
/
\
/
/
-o
NEWBURGH + »BEACON
/
I
WESTPOINT«\ /
/I //BEAR MT. BRIDGE
^/ > "O, PEEKSKILL '
}
/ .7^o 40
.S HAVERS TR AW
TAPPAN2EE BRIDGED
\
fRK 321MP2Q\
G.WASHINGTON BRIDGE
INDIAN POINT MP«(RK 69)
TARRY TOWN
l(
JERSEY Cim
NEWARKJ^T/
~~^c_
^—^
INDIAN POINT
NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
CITY
MP —MILES POINT
RK-River Kile
1
-N-
SCAUE JN HILE3
eter
Figure VI-3
Hudson River Estuary
- 42 -
-------
Relationship of 137Cs Distribution Coefficients
and Chlorosity in Continuous Water Samples at
Indian Point 1971 (Jinks and Wrenn 1975)
10DE
10°:
U)
I
Kd
Kd = 9084 [Cf]~
r =0.95
10
Figure VI-4
-------
o*
\
6
a
c
ncentratic
o
(J
V)
(J
V
0
i-4 ^ §
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
2 * c
2 *
A i
'5
Q_
xf^ ' ""'Xv ro
/ -» """" ^** >v ^
/>- * Nv--x ^
- /^ > \
- / />x
_// Predicted Dissolved 1 Cs N
1 37
^
y ___ fa __^ "V.Q ^
^^— — rn — ' ! D i D i i Ti i T^CK^A
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 IQO
River Kilometers
Figure VI-5
Predicted and Measured 'Cs Distributions Along 1200 m
from the East Bank 5 m Below Water Surface
-------
u
a
DO
u.
0)
>
be
c
c
O
ro
u.
c
QJ
O
c
o
u
«/>
CJ
0
137
Cs with Bed Clay
137
Cs with Bed Silt
137Cs with Bulk
Bed Sediment
137Cs with .
Bed Sand
137
O Measured Particulate Cs
with Bulk Bed Sediment
(Wrenn et al. 1971)
137
O Measured Particulate C$
with Bed Clay
(Wrenn et al. 1972)
13..
""a a""
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
River Kilometers
80
90
100- 1 10
Figure VI-6
Longitudinal Distribution of Particulate 137Cs Concentra-
tion Sorbed by Bed Sediment in the Top 10-cm Bed Layer
-------
Directi'on in Northeast, m
H-
(W
GO
X N
3 cu
cr
O"
.
O
o.
rt
zr
fD
OJ
c-l-
n>
O)
<•<
CO
-------
•-J
I
Figure vi-s Observed General Ebb Tide Current Pattern
-------
0
00
I
to
03
Q)
.C
C
o
o
4920
1 - -
1 - - *
<^ *£ JL ^—
-: ^ K y ^
| X A, |
Time - 19.3 Hours
VMAX = 1.2930
l i i
0 1 2
Kilometers
r ^ I
-*-<-.»- ^^rm^t^t^-
*- 4- *- ^-^-^^ >•
«--*--«- ^-^ *- * >- * t
**- _^- _* r~ _* -£_ 4* I* A
•* >• r »• rj
^-l " ' ^ •=
^ ^ Q
( m
V)
ro
\
X
\1-
N
V
\XvtZ^xr-<-<-<-<-< -: UL
sY<<^-c-t-«-' -* QJ
** C
_ "o
4— *
(S)
0
Figure VI-9
Direction in Northwest, m
Simulated Horizontal Velocity Field on the Top Water
Near Maximum Flood
9160
Layer
-------
O
.3
CD
(—»•
CD
—i
CO
ro
^^HB
W^
V^*-
X.
^
1 \
\
Crt
rt
i-j
S»
H-
r+
O
Hi
C^
e
fo
3
p.
CD
hrf
C
O
P
Figure vi-io Observed General Flood Current Pattern
-------
(VII) DEEP-OCEAN CURRENT MEASUREMENT STUDIES CONDUCTED IN THE!
ATLANTIC BY SAIC FOR ORP
By Peter Hamilton
Science Application International, Corporation
Raleigh, NC
i. Overview
In 1976, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Office of Radiation Programs (ORP), initiated a survey of the
Atlantic 2800-m low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal site.
A three-month record was obtained for four mooring containing a
total of five meters. The principal findings are that
substantial, 3-4 cm/s, southwesterly mean currents were observed
near the bottom and that the low frequency part of the spectrum is
dominated by fluctuations with about a 16-day period which could
be explained as bottom-trapped topographic Rossby waves with
horizontal wavelengths of about 200 km. It implies that long-term
water mass transport is'dominated by the mean flow along the
isobaths with excursions of about 300-400 km over three months.
The Rossby waves disperse dissolved radionuclides with an
effective horizontal diffusion coefficient of 7 x 106 cm2/s.
Detailed data and results are contained in the 1982 EPA Report No.
520/1-82-002 titled, "Analysis of Current Meter Records at The
Northwest Atlantic 2800-meter Radioacti-ve Waste Dumpsite."
In 1984, the ORP/EPA initiated a study at the Atlantic 3800-m
LLW disposal site. The objective of this survey was to determine
the potential of radioactive materials, dumped between 1957 and
1959, to move toward shore and/or productive fishing areas. Under
an interagency agreement with the Minerals Management Service
(MMS), Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) was
contracted to study the currents in and around the 3800-m disposal
site area (see Figure VII-1). SAIC was already contracted to MMS
to study the Mid-Atlantic Slope and Rise (MASAR) dynamics west of
the disposal site to a depth of 3000-m. The incorporation of the
field worK and resulting data from the disposal site into the MASAR
effort was viewed as being mutually beneficial to both programs.
This report presents the final results of the two-year field
program, from May 1984 to May 1986, which was conducted to meet
the EPA requirements.
2. Program Interrelationship with MASAR
The 3800-m disposal site program was brought into the MASAR
program as shown in Figure VII-2. Chris Casagrande (SAIC) was the
program manager and Dr. Peter Hamilton (SAIC) conducted the
principal interpretative effort of the disposal site data.
The MASAR program, as part of the MMS Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS) Environmental Studies Program, focused on the following:
- 50 -
-------
o
o
Q
Eddies, rings, streamers, and other Gulf Stream (GS)
related events,
The Western Boundary Undercurrent (WBUC),
Circulation in the surface layer above the main
thermocline (less than 200 m),
The shelf/slope front.
To study these phenomena, the MASAR principal investigators
used hydrography, satellite imagery data from affiliated programs
in the area, and Eulerian current measurements. The location of
the 3800-m disposal site current measurement mooring in relation
to the MASAR moorings is shown in Figure VII-3.
3- Mooring Design, Deployment, and Rotation
The design used at the 3800-m disposal site is shown in
Figure VII-4. Five Aanderaa RCM-5 current meters were attached to
the mooring. The meters were spaced at 5, 100, 250, 400, and 1000
m above the ocean floor. The spacing was designed to allow
comparison of currents above, at, and below the Hudson Canyon
rim. The lower two instruments were in the canyon, the third,
level with the rim, and the upper two situated 150 m and 750 m
above the rim.
The mooring was deployed in May 1984, rotated three times at
approximately six-month intervals, and retrieved in May 1986. A
SKetch of the Hudson Canyon bathymetry, with the four mooring
deployment positions indicated is shown in Figure VII-1.
4. Data Analyses
The fourth deployment was deliberately placed on the western
side of the canyon to determine if there is any difference in flow
cnaracteristics, particularly mean currents, between the two sides
of the channel. The data show that there is no residual
circulation within the canyon. The flow above the canyon Is about
4 cm/s which indicates that the site was within the Western
Boundary Under Current. The 7-Day Low Pass (DLP) current data are
presented in Figure VII-5 and the 40-Hour Low Pass (HLP) current
data in Figure VII-6. These figures clearly snow that the
low-frequency motions penetrate all the way to the floor of the
canyon and increase in magnitude with depth. However, the
temperature spectra show decreasing variance with increasing depth
(figure VII-7). In the case of waves in the canyon, there is a
small, down-canyon flux of heat evident from the velocity and
temperature records at meters 13, 14, and 15. This may have
implications for the flux of pollutants down the canyon despite
relatively strong mean flows directed up the canyon.
Note:.Additional current measurement data obtained in the
Pacific in 1975 and 1977-78 at the Farallon Islands LLW disposal
site off San Francisco, CA, were not presented at this meeting.
This information, however, is provided in the Appendix.
- 51 -
-------
Figure VII-1. Locations of the mooring deployments and the
3800-m low-level radioactive waste disposal site superimposed
on the bathymetry of the Hudson Canyon (Hanselman and Ryan,
1983). Positions 1, 2, 3f and 4 refer to the May and October
1984 and April and November 1985 mooring deployment positions,
respectively. The triangle represents the center of the 3800-m
disposal site.
- 52 -
-------
I
Ol
COMOtATI
COMaMAnOH
niuura
loan)
raooiAM
MAMAOn
AOVMCWT MAID
0*-C. OAHfn IDAUNNMB QMVJ
INL *J. MUM MKMMMAVnn
WBAMCi AT TCI WA
Hil •UMMJTH
MOIOACTfn •*!!•
Figure VII-2. Managerial location of the EPA 3800-m low-level radioactive waste disposal
site currents investigation within the MASAR program.
-------
42 N
78W 76W
if
74 W
72 W
70 W
40 N
38 N
36 N
34 N
78 W
68W
^ 42 N
40 N
- 38 N
- 36 N
76 W
74 W
72 W
70 W
34 N
68 W
Figure VII-3. Location of the EPA 3800-m low-level radioactive
waste disposal site vis a vis the MASAR moorings. The triangle
represents mooring I at 3800-m site initially deployed in May
1984, the circles denote MASAR moorings deployed in February
1984, and the stars those deployed in September 1985.
- 54 -
-------
DEPTH (METERS)
2980
3000
3500
3750
3900
3993
4OOO
__,
00
00
LEGEND
STROBE AND
RADIO BEACON
15 INCH
GLASS FLOAT
AANDERAA
(CM)
PAIRED
RELEASES
ANCHOR
WHEEL
Figure vil-4. Design of Mooring I deployed at the 3800-m low-
level radioactive waste disposal site.
- 55 -
-------
I
Oi
Figure VII-5. 7-DLP currents and temperatures at Mooring I.
-------
s I
s •
I I
II 2930.
13 3600»
13 3750m
14 3900*
15 3995.
II 2930m
M 3900..
15 3995«
in
ttat
Figure VII-6. pive -month record of 40-HLP current and temperature data beginning
September 26, 1984 from mooring I a the 3800-m low-level radioactive waste disposal
site.
-------
Oi
00
KINETIC ENERGY SPECTRA
CYCLES/DAY
I NI2K R 3* MM I")
2 HI2»< M M 3M«.IH>
DATE > •
-------
(VIII) DYNALYSIS OF PRINCETON WORK ON HYDROGRAPHIC DATA FROM
NATIONAL ARCHIVE CENTERS FOR MMS/DOI
By Kung-Wei Yeh
Environmental Studies and Statistics Branch, ASD
Office of Radiation Programs
1.
Data Sources
Observed data play an essential role in the prediction of
ocean circulation processes. They provide boundary conditions
and initial conditions for computational domains and are
indispensable for a diagnostic model of the ocean. Historical
data were retrieved from national archive centers' such as the
National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC), the Fleet Numerical
Oceanography Center (FNOC), and the National Climatic Center, in
addition to the data collected through MMS and its predecessor,
Bureau of Land Management, and Department of Energy, National
Science Foundation and Navy in the region of mutual interest.
2.
Data Processes
The data from various sources were merged together and
sorted and stripped of duplicates. All data were interpolated to
tne National Oceanographic Data Center's standard level. The
resulting data base was subjected to quality control by
subjecting each cast to a one-dimensional three-point Turkey
filter. This filter chooses the median of the data and the
adjacent data value, and is a nonlinear filter with very useful
properties: it removes only sharp spikes in the record but leaves
tne rest of the record virtually unchanged including more gradual
changes. Subjecting each cast to a Turkey filter eliminates
erroneous data points in that cast. Station casts consisting of
temperature, salinity, and Sigma t information at various levels
were also suojected to a gross 'stability1 check.
3. Data Distributions
Climatological data reduction and analysis were done in two
stages. During the first stage, the calculations were done for a
domain north of 26.5° N and west of 65° W (Figure VI-2). In
the second stage, the domain was extended to 22.75° N. The
region is then bounded on the east side by 65° W and on the
south by 22.75° N. Hydrographic data has been processed on the
1/4° X 1/4° grid (Figure VIII-L). The surface marine
- 59 -
-------
observations have been initially binned on 1/2° X 1/2° grid,
and interpolated and smoothed on the 1/4° X 1/4° grid using
the Herring Poisson Objective Analysis Technique which is similar
to the Cressman Iterative Difference-Correction Scheme used in
numerical weather prediction. This method involves derivation of
the distribution of a property over the domain of interest from
data observed at isolated points. The final data base comprised
327,888 casts. Figures VIII-2 and VIII-3 present the
distributions of the overall number of observations available in
trie data base before the data reduction process on temperature
and salinity at 500- and 1000-m depth.
- 60 -
-------
. EASTERN CONTINENTAL
Figure VIII-1 .
A map of the Eastern Continental Shelf showing the
computational grid and the subdomains on which result
are shown.
- 61 -
-------
IN)
I
h SALINITY
500 M
ANNUAL
Wilmington
TEMP
500 M
ANNUAL
Wilmington
/e \»- e> k-" k
b—• L—•
26 -
82
80 78 76 74 72 70 82 80 78 76 74
Figure VIII-2. Number of observations of temperature and salinity at 500 m depth.
72
-------
36
• ! r
TEMP
1000 M
ANNUAL
Wilmington
1 r-TH
Hoc-folk
34
NOBS
Chorl
32
30
28
26
i
11
\
\ *>
V* &
\ \
k \
31
6
82 80 78 76 74 72
70
SALINITY
1000 M
ANNUAL
82 80 78
70
Figure VIII-3. Number of observations of temperature and salinity ar 1000 m depth.
-------
DYN HT
500/1800 M
RNNUflL
CONTOUR INTERVAL
.82 M
Figure VIII-4. 500/1000 m dynamic height distribution
for the annual case.
- 64 -
-------
(IX) GLOBAL MODELING EFFORT AT SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES FOR DOE
By Mel Marietta
Sandia National Laboratories
Albuquerque, NM
Sandia National Laboratories has developed a box modeling
approach, Mark A Model, for a preliminary overall assessment of the
radiological effects of subseabed disposal of high-level
radioactive waste (HLW) (see SAND 84-0646). This modeling approach
is also applicable for assessing the global dispersion of long
half-life isotopes of low-level radioactive waste (LLW). In Mark A
model, the regional simulation, as proposed to use FLESCOT model,
will be imbedded in and driven by General Circulation Model (GCM).
1. Problems to be Solved
Assess the impact of high-level radioactive waste disposal
in the geologic formations beneath the deep oceans on the
global population and environment.
2. Methodology Used
Used Mark A box model which integrates (1) General
Circulation Model (GCM), (2) Regional Eddy-Resoliving Model
(REMs), (3) Bottom Boundary Layer Model (BBLMs), and (4)
Surface Boundary Layer Model (SBLMs). The specific objectives
for each model are:
(a) General circulation model- spin-up ocean circulation
current system used as initial condition, generate
transport and geochemical distribution data which are
used to precondition and drive the Mark A box model, and
check their dispersion results. The GCM test problem
configuration is shown in Figure IX-1.
(b) Regional Eddy-Resolving Model (REM)- resolves mesoscale
motion of the proposed disposal site and simulates
radiological release.
(c) Bottom Boundary Layer Model (BBLM)- focuses on the
special dynamical processes that bring materials from the
sea floor to the interior.
- 65 -
-------
(d) Surface Boundary Layer Model (SBLM)- simulates realistic
condition of the uppermost water.
A schematic view of a Regional-Resolving Model with Bottom
Boundary Layer and Surface Boundary Model, embedded in and
driven by the GCM test problem model is shown in Figure IX-2.
Figures IX-3 and IX-4 show the nested box configuration and
the geochemical component of the Mark A box Model respectively.
The iterative procedure for embedding a regional eddy-
resolving model with numerically modeled BBLs and SBLs within
a GCM utilizes real ocean data.
Note: in box modeling, the physical process is replaced by a
prescribed bulk circulation which is based on either
observation or a dynamical model simulation such as the GCM
model.
3. Assumptions Made
Assumes all models can be interconnected in mass, momentum,
and energy without loss of their continuity of constituents
(i.e., conservation of mass, momentum and energy must be
retained everywhere).
4. Results Expected
Mark A box model has been applied to the North Atlantic for
the Nares Abyssal Plain (NAP) and Great Meteor East (GME)
sites. For the Mark A box configuration, modified East
Atlantic and West Atlantic box models were placed side by side
to constitute a four-zone North Atlantic mode. This
arrangement is motivated primarily by basin geometry,
underlying topography, site location, and local mixing time.
Integration of all models is still in progress.
REFERENCE:
SAND 84-0646, 1984. Report of The Second Annual Interim Meeting of
The Seabed Working Group, Physical Oceanography Task Group.
Fontainebleau, France, 9-12 January 1984. Edited by A. R. Robinson
and M. G. Marietta.
- 66 -
-------
I5°S
35° S
Figure IX-1. The POTG GCM test problem configuration as revised by the
addition of the Equatorial and South Atlantic Oceans.
- 67 -
-------
00
I
Y//ZS////Z,
Box model
components
GCM
15° N
REM embedded in GCM
Figure IX-2. A schematic view of a Regional Eddy-resolving Model with
Bottom Boundary Layer Model and Surface Boundary Layer Model, embedded in and
driven by the GCM test problem model. Also indicated (dashed lines) are the
boxes of the Mark A model, suggesting the three way interdependency that these
models share.
-------
NESTED BOX MODEL
OCEAN
f
BASIN
GYRE
EDDY JI *" ~
1-tBML
il-ssrl .*
-»*- —
— -^B-
1*
1
•^—
.1
: «' »' »' SEDIMENT *' *' )
Figure IX-3
The Nested Box Configuration used by TASC, Based Upon the
Work of Kupferman and Moore (1981).
- 69 -
-------
Surface
FORMAT/ON ZONE
(1) Surface Box
Kd
200m
SUBSURFACE SINKING ZONE
(DISSOLUTION AND DECOMPOSITION)
(2) Subsurface Box
t>
*
•fi
lOOOm
SORPTIVE EQUILIBRIUM
(NO DISSOLUTION)
(3) Mid-depth Box
v
UPPER
LAYER
Biological
Repackaging
BOUNDARY LAYER
(lNCL.. 50 ym) formed in the surface waters,
about 10% survive below 1000-m depth, the other 90% being
dissolved or decomposed in the upper 1000 m. Between 1000
m and 4450 in, processes that can both enhance and diminish
particle size are encountered. Of the large particles
reaching the BBL, about 90% are thought to dissolve in the
lysocline. The remaining 10% are transmitted to the
bioturbated sediment layer where they are broken up
mechanically. Except for resuspension, small particles
accumulate as sediment. Particle-solution interactions
occur throughout the water column, indicated in the figure
by a K
-------
(X) FIELD DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS FOR MMS/DOI MASAR PROJECT
By Peter Hamilton
Science Applications International Corporation
Raleigh, NC
1. Overview of MASAR Program
In 1973, the Department of Interior (DOI) initiated the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) Environmental Studies Program to support
the department's OCS oil and gas leasing program. In September
1983, under the OCS program, the Minerals Management Service (MMS)
of DOI contracted with Science Applications International
Corporation (SAIC) to provide a study of the physical processes on
the Mid-Atlantic Slope and Rise (MASAR). The MMS stated objectives
for this study were to:
o Determine the broad scale, general circulation features
on the continental slope and rise on a seasonal basis,
o Describe and quantify the variability in these areas in
the vertical and horizontal planes,
o Determine the degree to which the slope/rise circulation
features influence the physical oceanography of the
Mid-Atlantic continental shelf.
To meet these objectives, the program focused on the
following:
o Eddies, rings, streamers, and other Gulf Stream (GS)
related events,
o Western Boundary Undercurrent (WBUC),
o Circulation in the surface layer above the main
thermocline (less than 200 m),
o Shelf/slope front,
o Potential for waste transport at the EPA 3800-m dumpsite.
- 71 -
-------
This report, derived from MMS/DOI 1987 preliminary final
report submitted by SAIC, focuses on field data collection and
analysis of the final results of a two-year field program
designed to meet the above objectives.
2. Methodology
The methodology used to collect the field data addressing
the physical processes of the MASAR study area relied primarily
on an array of current meter moorings deployed over the slope and
rise as shown in Figures VII-3 and X-2. The initial moorings
were primarily located to intercept the southwestward passage of
Warm Core Rings (WCRs), to determine the presence, extent and
variability of the Western Slope Sea Gyre first inferred by
Sverdrup in 1942, and to determine their interactions with the
deeper Western Boundary Undercurrent (WBUC).
The current meter measurements were supplemented by
hydrographic cruises, which identified the location of water
masses associated with the shelf, slope, and GS regimes, thus
providing data from which circulation was inferred implicitly
from tracers and explicitly from geostrophic calculations.
In addition, extensive use of remote sensing techniques provided
daily infrared images, statistical data on Gulf Stream_locations,
and warm- and cold-core ring dimensions along with their life
expectancy and speed.
In order to provide sufficient data to describe all the
processes directly affecting the dynamics and circulation within
the study area, the MASAR program drew on several associated
programs conducted in the same region under the auspices of other
agencies. These programs were:
o The Gulf Stream Meander, Dynamics sponsored by National
Science Foundation (NSF) and Office of Naval Research
(ONR), designed to study the meandering processes in the
GS, utilizing current meters and inverted echo sounders.
The principal investigators were Drs. Randolph Watts of
the University of Rhode Island (URI) and John Bane of the
University of North Carolina (UNC).
o The Shelf-Edge Exchange Processes (SEEP), a program
supported by the Department of Energy (DOE). The
program's objectives were to describe and quantify the
cross-shelf transport and subsequent deposition on the
slope of organic carbon. The leader of the physical
program was Dr. Gabriel T. Csanady (WHOI).
- 72 -
-------
o Microbial Exchange and Coupling in Coastal Atlantic
Systems (MECCAS), a program funded by NSF. This study
undertaken by Dr. William Biocourt (UM) addresses the
dynamics of estuarine plumes formed by the outflow of low
salinity water onto the continental shelf. Only the
observations concerned with the ambient shelf circulation
and cross-shelf hydrographic transects were used in
conjunction with other MASAR data to evaluate shelf-slope
coupling features and variability.
o The Warm Core Rings Experiment (WCRE), funded by NSF and
directed by Drs. Otis Brown and Robert Evans (RSMAS,
University of Miami) provided much of the 10-year
statistical information on WCRs presented in this report.
The locations of moorings and instrumentation provided by
the associated programs are shown in Figure X-3.
Finally, a substantial, historical, regional data base was
used in order to provide the comprehensive interpretation.
3. Slope Water
The water mass located between the edge of the continental
shelf and the Gulf Stream, as shown in Figure X-4, is called
slope water. This water mass plays an important role in the
transport and dispersion of pollutants in the Mid-Atlantic
Region. Iselin (1936) pointed out that slopewater was much like
North Atlantic Central Water (NACW). The specific layers of
slope water include those containing an admixture of Atlantic
Intermediate Water (AAIW), except that each layer of given
temperature and salinity was located at a depth some 500 m
shallower than in the Sargasso Sea, and that salinity at constant
temperature was less than in NACW by about 0.05 o/oo. An
empirical scheme of slopewater circulation is shown in
Figure X-5.
4.
Data Products
Standard sets of hydrographic data products were supplied to
each Principle Investigator (PI) of the programs. These included
profiles of observed and derived variables in sequential format,
grouped according to previously designated cross- and along-shelf
transects. Each set consisted of:
o Contoured vertical fields of potential temperature,
salinity, salinity anomaly, and density (sigma-t).
- 73 -
-------
o Contoured vertical plots of oxygen, silicate, nitrate,
and phosphate.
o Temperature-salinity mixing diagrams (Figure X-6).
o Oxygen- and nutrient-density mixing diagrams.
o Nutrient-temperature mixing diagrams.
Other products such as mixing diagrams for nitrate-phosphate
were supplied when requested.
Most of the contour plots were generated using a National
Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) graphics package called
CONRAC which triangulates and contours through the data field.
Calibration checks were applied not only in the field during
data acquisition but also during the in-house data reduction
process. Comparisons of nitrates, phosphates, and silicates
against each other, versus temperature and salinity, and versus
historical data provided a check on data quality.
The steps used in processing and editing of the iMASAR raw
CTD data files were as follows:
o The raw data were read into sequential disk files created
by storing the data scans as ASCII characters. These
sequential disk files were then converted into separate
temperature, conductivity, and pressure files ordered by
cast number with checks for large spikes, data gaps, and
the number of data scans.
o Cast header information required for NODC data files were
stored in the individual cast file header records.
o Vertical profiles of temperature and conductivity were
plotted and checked for spikes or obviously questionable
data which were then removed.
o Data were converted to regular depth intervals. These
regular depth interval data were then used to produce
cast listings and final data plots. These final plots
were checked against the vertical profiles produced
earlier.
o Data tapes in National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC)
format were then produced and submitted to NODC.
- 74 -
-------
Data collected by the XBT acquisition system and thermo-
salinograph underwent similar procedures and were then cross-
checked and calibrated as necessary. Table X-l lists MASAR
mooring cruises between February 1984 and May 1986.
The upper-level and near bottom currents from the MASAR
array are shown in Figures X-7, X-8, and X-9. A transect of
temperature, salinity, and density taken on MASAR cruise 2 is
seen in Figure X-lOa. In Figure X-lOb, one saline tongue is
intruding shoreward at 170-m depth, another, less regular one at
40-50 m. A pycnostad is visible between the, two intrusions,
centered at about 110 m (Figure X-lOc). The surface mixed layer,
about 25 m deep, is very fresh to a long distance from the shelf
edge front.
The energy spectra for MASAR near-bottom current
measurements are shown in Figure X-ll. These deal with the
alongshore (V) component of current. It is generally only this V
component that has high coherence between neighboring pairs of
deep site.
REFERENCES:
Iselin, C.O'D., 1936. A Study of The Circulation of The
Western North Atlantic. PPOM4, No. 4, MIT-Woods Hole
Oceanographic Inst., 101 pp.
MMS/DOI 1987. Study of Physical Processes on The U.S.
Mid-Atlantic Continental Slope and Rise. SAIC preliminary final
report, 1987.
- 75 -
-------
40 N
200m
lOOOm
20OOm
38 N
- 38 N
36 N
- 36 N
34 N
78 W
76 W
74 W
72 W
70 W
34 N
68 W
Figure X—1. Location of all MASAR moorings. The eight original moorings deployed in Feb. 1984 are designated
by • and those deployed in Sept. 1985 are shown by * .
- 76 -
-------
NORTHERN TRANSECT
A C
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
^1030
MARCH'85
NAUTICAL
MILES
LEGEND
D AANDERAA
0 SEA DATA
A GENERAL OCEANICS
3000 L
DEPTH OCTERS)
Figure X-2 . The northern mooring transect showing instrument locations. Note that a mid-depth current meter was added to mooring E in March 1985.
-------
RgurcX-3 . Mooring locations of the associated programs: SEEP, MECCAS, and Gulf Stream Variability, sharing
data with MASAR.
- 78 -
-------
50°N
40«
80°W
70'
60C
SHELF EDGE
LABKADOK
-SEA WATER
SLOPEWATEK
50*
Figure X * Location of slopewater between the edge of the continental shelf and the Gulf Stream, from Cape Hatteras to the
Grand Banks. Most of the area is occupied by slopewater except in the northeast comer where coastal Labrador Sea water intrudes.
- 79 -
-------
Co
O
70°W
50°
FigureX -5 . Empirical scheme of slopewater circulation, containing: CLSW inflow from the Grand Banks partly retroflecting. partly flowing southwestward along the continental
margin; a western Slope Sea gyre; and inflow from the Gulf Stream thermocline. All inflows drain eastward.
-------
MASAR II CRUISE
o
CD
LU
O
UJ
or
-------
GSNrti GStont!
GSNrti
00
to
GSHnwl
El 40tn
FlgureX-7 . Upper-level currents from the MASAR array. The Gulf Stream positions are denoted at the top.
-------
39 N
76 W
38 N
37 N -
36 N
76 W
39 N
76 W
38 N
37 N
36 N
76 W
75 W
74 W
73 W
72 W
71 W
70 W
39 N
OM-ACED OJLF STREAM PERiOD
M/1 O/1 0 OOl - as/0 I /3 I 00:
UPPER INSTRUMENT
ci no
10 20
ICU S<
I
(a)
38 N
37 N
75 W
75 W
74 W
74 W
73 W
73 W
72 W
72 W
71 W
71 W
36 N
70 W
70 W
39 N
NO*UU. OJL5 STREAM PERIOD
94/05/0 I 00: - 94/09/2 I 00:
UPPER INSTRUMENT
/
a no
10 20
ICM S>
I
(b)
38 N
37 N
75 W
74 W
73 W
72 W
36 N
71 W
70 W
FlgureX-S.(a) Upper-level currents averaged over the period of displaced Gulf Stream position, 10 Oct. I984—31 Jan. I986.
(b) Upper-level currents averaged over the period of normal Gulf Stream path, 1 May—21 Sept., 1984.
- S3 -
-------
I
CO
76 M
39 N
38 N
37 N -
36 N
76 W
75 W
74 H
73 H
72 H
71 W
MASAR TOTAL RECORD UEAN3
LOWER INSTRUMENT
75 W
74 W
73 H
72 W
Figur
-------
S/SS I * ; I ;» s
NORTHERN LINE
MWS/SAIC/fASAR CRUISE 2
S/30/84 TC 5/31/84
STATIONS 28 T0 50
TEIWJATUBC DEC C
*!N • 5,73 MX . 21 5J
NORTHERN LINE
1MS/SAIC/.-ASAS CRUISE 2
5/JJ S« TO S/31/84
S-'-':-.S T8 '0 59
«.:NJ*T pa*
MIX - ~i 93 1AX . 36 17
2SC -
S/30 9« '0 S/31'84
ST»::;vs J8 TO 53
s: ;.-* -:
"IX • 22 83 -41 . 2' 3'
30S
3B
63 90
DISTANCE CK.1)
15B
(a)
(b)
:o
Figure X4 Q. MASAR Cruise 2 hydrographic transects: (a) temperatures, (b) salinity, (c) density (ot). Saline tongues are intruding
at 40 and 150-m pth. Fresher water overrides slopewater at the surface and there is also a barely perceptible seaward intrusion
of fresher water from the cold pool.
- 85 -
-------
SPECTRA
•V-l
CYCLES/DAY
D « »• 1X1 w» in u COMPONENT
a « la!' H DASHED V COMPONENT
1T •«/««. "I"" "ME SERIES LENOTH. 325 OATS
KWECS OP FREEDOM " .8 iAWuflri6? ?S»eiaS c?S
(a)
SPECTRA
CYCLES/DAY
• N03B4 R 82 23M-(MI
1 VOllt R 82 23M-IMI
OAlS M/ 4/ 6. 1
DCWEES OF FREEDOM , .9
SOLID U COMPONENT
DASHED V COMPONENT
TIME SERIES LENGTH . 325 .DAYS
8ANOMIOTH , B B2788233 CPO
SPECTRA
Q
O_
\
LU
O
(c)
CYCLES/DAY
1 NCIBS R 52 I8B«. DASHED V COMPONENT
DATE . «S/ 4/ 5, 3 TIME SERIES LENGTH , 326 OAYG
OEOPEES OF FREEDOM . .a BANDWIDTH , ».K!7ee233 CPD
(b)
SPECTRA
CYCLES/DAY
INEIB4 RBZ 2888. (M)
2NEIB4 HS2 2889. IM)
0»TE . «5/ 4/ 8, B
OEOREES OF FREEDOM . 18
SOLID U COMPONENT
DASHED V COMPONENT
TIME SERIES LENGTH • 328 DAYS
SANOUIOTH . B. 92788233 CPO
(d)
Figure X—11. Spectra of along-isobath (dashed line) and cross-isobath (solid line) components of current showing the pattern
ol variance (or mooring (a) B. (b) C, (c) D. and (d) E.
- 86 -
-------
Table X-l. MASAR Mooring Cruises between February 1984 and May 1986.
CRUISE NO.
1
2
3
4a
4b
4c
5
6
7
8a
8b
9
10
DATES
24 February - 4 March 11984
27 - 31 May 1984
16-26 June 1984
6-12 September 1984
25 September - 2 October 1984
26 - 30 November 1984
26 - 28 October 1984
27 March - 3 April 1985
29 April - 1 May 1985
28 September - 5 October 1985
29 October - 11 November 11985
28 February - 12 March 1986
5 - 10 May 1986
i
MOORING SITES
A - H
A, I
A, J
A - D, G
C - F, H, J
A, D, H
I
- A - H
I
A-D, F, G, K-P
E, H, I, Q, R
A - H, K - Q
I
- 87 -
-------
IV. CLOSING REMARKS
by Kung-Wei Yeh
Office of Radiation Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
On behalf of the Office of Radiation Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, thank you all for attending the "Modeling
Efforts at EPA" meeting in Washington, DC. We are particularly
appreciative of our speakers for their excellent presentations.
We hope this meeting will help us to get acquainted with all
ongoing and/or completed efforts on ocean modeling and data
collection at EPA in order to avoid redundancies in future work
and to coordinate resources of various program offices. From
this meeting, we hope that in the near future we may be able to
identify areas of cooperation and collaboration on modeling and
data collection efforts in support of Agency regulations
development.
A proceedings of this meeting will be prepared and
transmitted to you in the future.
- 88 -
-------
LIST OF MEETING ATTENDEES AND SPEAKERS
H. S. Bolton
Battelle Washington Operations
2030 M. St., NW
suite 606
Washington, DC 20036
(202)728-7107
Philip Cuny
Office of Radiation Programs, (ANR-461)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)475-9630
John Davidson
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)382-5484
Robert Dyer
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)475-9630
Richard Ecker *
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laooratories
Richland, WA 99352
(509)376-9681
J. William Gunter
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)475-9630
Cheng Hung
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)475-9633
- 89 -
-------
David Janes *
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)475-9626
Joseph Karam *
IGF, Incorporated
1850 K. St., NW
Washington, DC 20006
(202)862-1100
Mel Marietta *
Sandia National Laboratories
Albuquerque, NM 87185
(505)844-7351
James Neiheisel
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)475-9644
Christopher Nelson
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)475-9640
Yasuo Onishi *
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories
Richland, WA 99352
(509)376-8302
Martha Otto
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)382-2208
John F. Paul *
Environmental Research Laboratory-Narragansett
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Narragansett, RI 02882
(401)789-1071
- 90 -
-------
Mashesh Podar
Office of Policy Analysis, OPPE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)382-2753
Mark Reed *
Applied Science Associates, Inc.
529 Main Street
Wakefield, RI 02879
(401)789-6224
Darcey Rosen.blatt
Technical Resources, Inc.
Washington, DC
(202)231-5250
Malcolm Spaulding
Applied Science Associates, Inc.
529 Main Street
Wakefield, RI 02879
(401)789-6224
JoAnne Sulak
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)382-5979
Alexandra Tarnay
Office of Water Regulation and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)382-7036
Marilyn Varela
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)475-9630
- 91 -
-------
Joseph Yance
Office of Water Regulation and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)382-5379
Rung-Wei Yen *
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)475-9630
Bob Zeller *
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection/OW
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)475-8076
* Speakers
- 92 -
-------
Appendix
CURRENT MEASUREMENTS AT THE FARALLON ISLANDS LOW-LEVEL
RADIOACTIVE WASTE (LLW) DISPOSAL SITE, 1975 and 1977-78
William R. Curtis
Environmental Studies and Statistics Branch, ASD
Office of Radiation Programs
In 1975 and again in 1977-78, the Office of Radiation Programs
(ORP) conducted current measurements at the Farallon Islands off the
coast of San Francisco, CA. Figure A-l shows the location of the
Farallon Islands LLW site and the current meter mooring locations
for the 1975 and 1977-78 deployments. Figure A-2 shows the
topography in the LLW disposal site relative to current meter
mooring arrays A-D in the 1977-78 study. The results of the two
data collections and analysis efforts are briefly described.
I. In August 1975, four current meters were deployed by Scripps
Institute of Oceanography for the Office of Radiation Programs.
This study was designed to assess the current regime in the disposal
site. The meters were recovered approximately one month later.
Analyses of data included the generation of calibrated time history
records and the extraction of tidal currents to produce tidal
ellipses and progressive vector diagrams.
Two usable records (as indicated in Table A-l) were obtained:
(1) the speed for Meter 1009, point X, ranged between 0.0
and 20.61 cm/sec, with a mean magnitude of 5.54 cm/sec, and
(2) for Meter 1028, point Y, the range was 0.0 to 18.15
cm/sec, with a mean magnitude of 5.26 cm/sec. The vector-averaged
currents for Meter 1028 were mostly northward, with an average
vector magnitude of 1.33 cm/sec. The majority of the spectral
energy for both meters was at the semi-diurnal tidal frequency. In
addition to the diurnal and inertia! peak, Meter 1028 also exhibited
a significant spectral peak at about six hours, which could be
attributed to internal waves.
The study was reported in the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Report 520/1-83-019, titled "Analysis of Ocean Current Meter
Records Obtained from a 1975 Deployment Off the Farallon Islands,
California."
- A-l -
-------
II. In October 1977, seven current meters, on four mooring
arrays, were deployed. The study was designed to estimate the
potential for sediment transport of radioactive waste materials
from the disposal site. Recovery of the meters occurred in
October 1978. Figure A-2 shows the locations of current meter
deployments relative to the points B.C.D. in Figure A-l.
The general conclusions of the study were:
(1) In the deep western part of the site, current
measurements exceeded 20 cm/sec no more than 3% of the time.
This bottom current speed may be sufficient to suspend
fine-grain sediments (silt and clay) from the bottom, providing
a potential for transport in the water column;
(2) Long-term average near-bottom currents move north and
eastward throughout the site. The average current speeds
diminish from 1.7 cm/sec at the deep western end of the site to
0.17 cm/sec at the eastern end. Thus, it appears that this
vector decreases with proximity to the shore.
The analysis of current, sediment, and bathymetric data, as
well as an analysis of transport mechanisms related to these
data, is presented in the 1982 Interstate Electronics
Corporation 1982 final contract report to the ORP, entitled
"Farallon Islands Oceanographic Data Analysis, Volumes I and II."
Table A-l, Current Data Obtained in 1975 Study
X
Y
METER
NO.
1009
1028
START
DATE/TIME
8/21/75
21:00
8/22/75
2:30
END
DATE/TIME
9/17/75
15:30
9/17/75
17:00
NORTH
LAT
(m)
37°37'30"
37°38'30"
WEST
LONG
(m)
123°18'0"
123°18'0"
SITE
DEPTH
1739
1851
METER
DEPTH
1737
1849
DATA
RECORDS
1286
1278
- A-2 -
-------
Figure A-l. Location of Farallon Islands low-level radioactive
waste disposal site and 1975 & 1977-78 current meter
mooring locations.
TO SURFACE i • AB8AT 8
AflflAT A
A88AT 0
TO SUBTLE
• • SUBSURFACE 8UOTS
A • AKOICa/ACOUSTIC RELEASE
• * AAKOEMA CURRENT
(NOT ORAUN TO SCALE)
• « VECTOR-AVERA6INS CURHE«T BETER
Figure A-2. Location of current meter deployments in the
1977-78 study relative to points B, C, and D on Figure,. A-l.
- A-3 -
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
------- |