United States Air And
Environmental Protection Radiation EPA 520/1-90-027
Agency (ANR-459) September 1990
&EPA Recovery Of Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Packages
From Deep-Ocean
Disposal Sites
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
EPA 520/1-90-027
RECOVERY OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE
PACKAGES FROM DEEP-OCEAN DISPOSAL SITES
By
Barrie B. Walden
Department of Ocean Engineering
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543
Prepared as a product of work sponsored by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
under Contract # EPA 68-01-6272
Project Officer
Robert S. Dyer
Analysis and Support Division
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
FOREWORD
In 1972 the Congress enacted Public Law 92-532, the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act, which authorized the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to regulate any future ocean disposal of waste materials, including low-level
radioactive waste (LLW).
Accordingly, since 1974, the EPA Office of Radiation Programs (ORP) has
conducted studies at Atlantic and Pacific ocean sites used by the U.S. from the 1940's to
the late 1960's for disposal of LLW. The studies were conducted to: determine whether
current technologies could be applied to assessing the fate of radioactive wastes disposed
in the past, by locating and evaluating the condition of LLW packages and by measuring
radioactivity in samples of sediment and biota to determine whether the marine
environment had been adversely affected, and, if so, whether such effects posed any
detrimental health effects to man. The studies were also designed to provide information
for developing effective controls to protect man and the marine environment from any
future ocean disposal of LLW.
ORP successfully located radioactive waste packages in the formerly used
LLW disposal sites and then initiated an extensive monitoring program to examine
geological, biological, physical and chemical characteristics of these site, as well as to
determine the presence and distribution of radionuclides in and near the sites. ORP has
also evaluated the performance of past packaging techniques and materials by recovering
LLW packages from three deep-ocean disposal sites.
The first LLW package was recovered from the Atlantic 2800-meter disposal
site in 1976. Additional packages were recovered from the Pacific (Farallon Islands) 900-
meter and Atlantic 3800-meter sites in 1977 and 1978. This report describes the
techniques used to recover the three LLW packages.
The Agency invites all readers of this report to send comments or suggestions
to Mr. Martin P. Halper, Director, Analysis and Support Division (ANR-461), Office of
Radiation Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,"Washington, DC^20460. //
if > i
Richard J. GFuimond, Director
Office of Radiation Programs
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD iii
LIST OF FIGURES vii
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 DISCUSSION OF RECOVERY TECHNIQUES 2
2.1 Navigation 2
2.2 Lift and Recovery Equipment Attachment 3
2.3 Lift Method 3
2.4 Surface Handling 4
3 PRELIMINARY EQUIPMENT INVESTIGATIONS 4
3.1 Constant-Buoyancy Lift Package 4
3.2 Variable-Volume Lift Devices 5
3.3 Surface Ship Direct Lift 6
3.4 Submersible Direct Lift 6
4 1976 RECOVERY, ATLANTIC OCEAN 2800-METER SITE 7
4.1 Equipment Design and Preparations 7
4.1.1 General Considerations 7
4.1.2 Lift Line Attachment Devices 7
4.1.3 Lifting Equipment 11
4.2 Recovery Operations 12
5 1977 RECOVERY, PACIFIC OCEAN (FARALLON ISLANDS) SITE 20
5.1 Equipment Design and Preparations 20
5.2 Recovery Operations 20
6 1978 RECOVERY, ATLANTIC OCEAN 3800-METER SITE 25
6.1 Equipment Design and Preparations 25
6.2 Recovery Operations 25
7 OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS 30
8 RECOMMENDATIONS 32
REFERENCES 33
APPENDIX A-l
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Chart of Atlantic Ocean LLW Disposal Sites 8
2 Cam-lock Grabber Waste Package Lift Line
Attachment Device 9
3 Wire Rope Basket/Harness Waste Package
Lift Line Attachment Device 10
4 Lift Cable Positioning 1976 Atlantic Ocean Recovery 13
5 Lift Cable Arrangement - 1976 Atlantic Ocean Recovery 14
6 Lift Cable Attachment - 1976 Atlantic Ocean Recovery 15
7 LLW Package 1976 Atlantic Ocean Recovery 18
8 Deployment of Cable Attachment Basket/Harness by ALVIN 18
9 LLW Package at the Surface - 1976 Atlantic Ocean Recovery 19
10 Chart of Pacific Ocean LLW Disposal Site 21
11 PISCES VI Configured for 1977 Pacific Ocean Recovery 23
12 PISCES VI Deploying Waste Package Attachment Basket/Harness 23
13 Pacific Disposal Site LLW Package aboard R/V VELERO IV 24
14 ALVIN with Scientific Samplers Mounted on Equipment
Attachment Frame 26
15 ALVIN's Equipment Attachment Frame Being Outfitted for
1978 Atlantic Ocean Recovery Operations 28
16 Lifting Harness in Place Over LLW Package, Atlantic 3800m Site 28
17 Transfer of LLW Package from ALVIN to R/V ADVANCE II 29
18 LLW Package in Lower Half of Transport Overpack 31
vii
-------
INTRODUCTION
The former U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) licensed the ocean disposal of
low-level radioactive waste (LLW) beginning in 1946. From that time until 1962, when
land disposal was approved, LLW was routinely embedded in concrete contained in steel
drums and dumped primarily at three AEC-designated Atlantic and Pacific ocean disposal
sites. The depths of water at these sites ranged from approximately 900 to 3800 meters.
Approximately 75,000 LLW packages were disposed of in this manner before ocean
disposal was terminated in 1970 following the recommendations of the Federal Council on
Environmental Quality in a report to the President.
Increased environmental concern about using the oceans for disposal of LLW is
evident in domestic and international research activities, discussions of international
scientific organizations, U.S. legislation, and in the activities of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) which regulates U.S. ocean disposal of all types of waste
materials. As a first step in developing effective regulatory controls, the EPA initiated a
program to determine the effectiveness of past LLW disposal techniques. EPA conducted
surveys in 1974 and 1975 of Atlantic and Pacific ocean sites that were used previously for
LLW disposal. Manned and unmanned submersibles were used to assess the physical
condition of LLW containers and the near-field distribution of any released wastes.
Early controls on the packaging of LLW were aimed at ensuring that the packages
reached the ocean bottom relatively intact; but standardization of size, shape and internal
configuration was not a requirement. As a result, the disposal packages were found to vary
in size and weight; the majority being between 55 and 80 gallons with weights in water
ranging from 550 to 1400 pounds (250 to 650 Kg). To ensure sinking, the AEC required
that the packages have a minimum weight of 550 pounds. Internal configurations
frequently included an inner container housing the waste materials which was surrounded
by concrete that filled the remainder of the inside of a steel drum. These waste packages
were, in fact, pressure vessels with concrete walls and end caps and many configured in this
manner reached the ocean bottom in a distorted condition as a result of implosion due to
increasing hydrostatic pressure acting upon the waste container as it descended.
The EPA site surveys in 1974 and 1975 pointed to the need for further information,
-------
The EPA site surveys in 1974 and 1975 pointed to the need for further information,
particularly in determining more precisely the contents and packaging techniques used in
past disposal operations. In 1976, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) was
awarded a contract from EPA to develop a method for recovering selected LLW packages
from ocean sites previously used for disposal of LLW. Recovery would allow for more
detailed study of waste packages and their contents after prolonged exposure in the marine
environment. The recovery technique developed by WHOI was used to successfully
retrieve three LLW packages from formerly used disposal sites in the ocean. In July 1976,
an 80-gallon waste drum was recovered from the Atlantic Ocean 2800 meters LLW
disposal site. Another drum was recovered from the Pacific Ocean 900 meter LLW
disposal site, near the Farallon Islands, in October 1977, and a third drum was recovered
from the Atlantic Ocean 3800 meter LLW disposal site in June 1978.
DISCUSSION OF RECOVERY PROBLEMS
Recovery of a one-half-ton object from the deep ocean is not a trivial undertaking
in the best of conditions. There are four major categories of associated tasks to
accomplish recovery: 1) object location (navigation); 2) attachment of lift and recovery
equipment; 3) lift to the surface; and 4) surface handling of the recovered object. For
LLW package retrievals, the nature of the objects to be recovered added to the normal
difficulties associated with each of these tasks since special handling and contamination
prevention procedures had to be instituted.
2.1 Navigation
U.S. ocean disposal of LLW was conducted at designated sites by licensed
contractors. Site designation and licensing were carried out by the former U.S. AEC.
LLW disposal packages were required to be labelled with a reference number and an
indication of the contents. Disposal records were to be maintained for each site. The
records were to provide the location and date of LLW disposals, plus the quantity and
reference number for each disposal package.
Using disposal records, the AEC conducted towed-camera disposal site surveys
between 1957 and 1961 at some of the sites that had previously been designated to receive
LLW. No photographs of packaged LLW were found in the Atlantic or Pacific sites
surveyed. The most likely cause for such a discrepancy is that navigational errors occurred
at the time of disposal or, later, during the site surveys. LLW packages were, however,
successfully located during EPA surveys of AEC-designated disposal sites in 1974 and 1975.
-------
2.2 Lift and Recovery Equipment Attachment
The waste packages of interest were not designed to be recovered. Although
basically similar, differences in construction and degree of deterioration made the design
of a suitable recovery device a challenging project.
The disposal packages were usually 55-gallon oil drums. In some cases, however,
the length of the package was increased by welding half of one 55-gallon drum to the top
of another. The weight of the packages varied, depending on size and contents, but
calculations indicated that a large drum totally filled with concrete would weigh 1400
pounds (650 kg). Therefore, 2000 pounds (907 kg) was selected as a reasonable maximum
for design purposes. Some disposal packages had attached lifting bails (handles), but they
were considered to be unreliable due to deterioration from lengthy submergence. For
the same reason, an attachment device for lifting could not rely on the usual details of 55-
gallon drum design, such as the end chimes and the ridges around its middle. A device
was required which could provide a reliable link between a lift line and a heavy cylinder,
partially submerged in sediments and in any possible orientation, without relying on any
characteristic of the cylinder other than its general shape. This device would also need to
be strong enough to withstand handling by the manipulating arm of a submersible.
2.3 Lift Method
Two methods were available for returning a heavy object from the sea floor to the
surface: 1) attachment of a floatation package, and 2) direct lift by using a surface winch.
In recovering a LLW package, the capability to control lift speed was considered important
since too rapid an ascent might cause the drum to rupture because entrapped water might
not be allowed adequate time for pressure equalization to occur. Conversely, a flotation
package, designed for slow ascent, could be subjected to considerable horizontal
displacement (drift) from the surface recovery ship due to transport by ocean currents as
it ascended. Locating a LLW container on the surface that was recovered by the flotation
technique could pose an added difficulty to the recovery operation. Direct lifting of the
package from the sea floor, using a surface winch, would solve both of these problems, but
at a cost of increased operational complexity.
-------
2.4 Surface Handling
Generally, successful handling and recovery of heavy objects at sea requires that the
object pass through the air-sea interface as quickly as possible. Potentially hazardous waste
packages, however, cannot simply be pulled from the water and placed on the ship's deck
without carefully considered safety measures. These measures must include a means for
containing any material that might break off or seep from the drum during recovery and
once it is onboard. This would likely result in holding a LLW drum out over the ships's
side, clear of the water and the deck, for a period of time. This would prolong the time
during which maximum stresses would be placed on the lifting devices/equipment, due to
ship motions especially in other than calm seas.
PRELIMINARY EQUIPMENT INVESTIGATIONS
Early in 1976, the Deep Submergence Engineering and Operations Group (the
ALVIN submersible Group) of the WHOI entered into a contract with EPA for the design
and demonstration of a system capable of recovering LLW packages from ocean disposal
sites. Various retrieval methods were considered during preparation of the initial proposal,
but all centered upon using the manned submersible ALVIN to locate a suitable LLW
package and attaching a lifting device to recover it. Four methods for performing the
actual lift and recovery were investigated and are outlined in the following subsections.
3.1 Constant-Buoyancy Lift Package
A constant-volume flotation package would be attached to the LLW package by the
submersible. The package would have over 1400 pounds (650 kg) of buoyancy for use
in lifting an 80-gallon drum. Thus, a releasable ballast weight would be required to allow
the flotation package to free fall or be carried to the sea bottom. Two flotation materials
were considered: syntactic foam and glass spheres. Both had the advantage of low
compressibility and, therefore, would provide buoyancy forces which would be essentially
constant with depth.
Using a syntactic foam with a density of 36 pounds/cubic foot (576 kg/cubic meter)
required a recovery device with a volume of approximately 70 cubic feet (2 cubic meters)
with an air weight of 2500 pounds (1135 kg) plus the weight of a suitable frame to hold
it all together. A descent weight of approximately 2000 pounds (910 kg) would be
required.
-------
The largest readily available glass spheres, suitable for deep-ocean usage, were 17
inches (43.2 cm) in diameter. One would provide 52 pounds (23.6 kg) of buoyancy.
Approximately 30 would be needed to lift an 80-gallon LLW package, and approximately
2000 pounds (910 kg) of releasable ballast would also be required.
Flotation devices constructed by using syntactic foam or glass spheres could be
launched from a reasonably equipped support ship and allowed to free fall to the bottom,
hopefully landing near the LLW package to be recovered. Attachment to the LLW drum
and release of the ballast weight on the flotation device would then be done by the
submersible, which would also move the package closer to the drum if required.
We found that multiple problems existed for this method. The flotation devices
were large, making surface and submerged handling difficult. The buoyancy was fixed in
advance, thus the speed of ascent during recovery could not be closely controlled without
knowing the weight of the LLW package in advance. Special hardware additions, such as
strobe lights and radio beacons, would be needed so that the flotation device and LLW
package could be located on reaching the sea surface. Finally, and perhaps most
importantly, when the submersible released the flotation device ballast weight, a possibility
(although remote) existed that the LLW package could fall out of the flotation device and
onto the submersible. Since none of these problems were unsolvable, this method was
considered to be realistic for use in recovering LLW packages.
3.2 Variable-Volume Lift Devices
These include lift bags incorporating gas generators to provide flotation only when
it is needed. They have the advantage of decreased size and mass compared to fixed
flotation devices. Thus, surface and submerged handling would be less of a problem. At
the time of the proposed work, experiments had been conducted by the U.S. Navy with
two methods for high pressure gas generation: the reaction of sea water with lithium
hydroxide, and the decomposition of hydrazine fuel. Both of these methods had been field
tested, but not in a size adequate to yield enough gas for LLW package recoveries.
The other problems associated with fixed flotation packages (e.g. ascent speed
control, surface location difficulties, and danger to the submersible during recovery) also
existed for variable-volume lift designs. The problems could be solved, but due to the
development effort required to obtain a safe recovery device of suitable buoyancy, this
method was not proposed for recovering the LLW packages.
-------
3.3 Surface Ship Direct Lift
At first consideration, this method appeared to be the most straightforward solution.
A surface ship would lower a weighted lift cable to the bottom and the submersible would
attach the lift cable to a lifting device on the LLW package. A major problem, however,
was that the submersible would not be able to move the end of the lowered cable because
of its weight, thus the cable end would have to be lowered close to the LLW package by
the surface ship. This type of operation has been conducted by WHOI previously. Based
on that experience, the following procedures were proposed: 1) bottom-moored acoustic
transponders would be emplaced in the disposal area to provide reference points for an
accurate bottom-tracking navigation survey; 2) the ALVIN would then conduct a sea
bottom navigation survey of the disposal area, utilizing the ALNAV long baseline acoustic
navigation system (see Appendix), and identify a suitable LLW package for recovery (the
exact position of the container would be established from the bottom navigational data);
3) after ALVIN surfaced, the lift cable, with a releasable weight and an acoustic
transponder "marker" attached to the end, would be lowered to within a few hundred
meters of the bottom; 4) the surface ship would then maneuver the end of the lift cable
into the correct position for recovery by tracking the "marker" as it moved within the
navigational network established during the earlier ALVIN dives; 5) additional lift cable
would then be paid out to allow its weighted and marked end to rest on the bottom near
the target LLW package; and 6) ALVIN would dive again to attach a lifting device to the
LLW package, to connect this device to the lift cable with a suitable tag line, and to
release the lift cable weight.
None of the problems associated with the flotation package concepts were present
with this method, but there was a potential submersible safety hazard. During the
attachment phase of the operation (# 6, above), ALVIN would be working directly
beneath a long, heavy cable leading to the surface ship. If the cable parted, it could very
well fall on the submersible - trapping it on the sea floor. The proposed solution was to
use a lift cable with minimal water weight, such as polypropylene or Kevlar line.
3.4 Submersible Direct Lift
This concept was not included in the original proposal. With this method, a LLW
package could be recovered 'directly' by using a tag line attached to a submersible. It is
a simpler recovery operation than the others proposed, but it requires that the submersible
have no less than a 1400-pound (650 kg) payload capacity - more than available with
ALVIN at this time.
-------
4 1976 RECOVERY, ATLANTIC OCEAN 2800-METER LLW DISPOSAL SITE
4.1 Equipment Design and Preparations
4.1.1 General Considerations
In July 1976, EPA and WHOI scientists conducted the first recovery of a LLW
package from a deep-ocean disposal site. The site had an area of 100 square miles (256
km2) and was centered at 38°30'N and 72°06W, with an average water depth of 2800
meters (Figure 1). The surface ship direct lift recovery concept was selected as the
method of retrieval. The potential safety problem (submersible working directly under a
heavy lift cable) was resolved by using a 0.445-inch (1.13 cm) diameter, 19 x 7 strand
Kevlar cable with a breaking strength of 10,000 pounds (4500 kg) and a water weight of
0.02 pounds per foot (30 g/m). Because of the low stretch characteristics of the Kevlar
line, a standard trawl winch could be used during recovery rather than a traction machine,
which would likely be needed if other lightweight synthetic lines were used.
The ALVIN's support ship, R/V LULU, did not have a long-lift capability, so the
R/V CAPE HENLOPEN, operated by the College of Marine Studies at the University
of Delaware, was used as a second support vessel for this operation. The CAPE
HENLOPEN was well suited for this recovery because of its medium size, making it easily
maneuverable, its reasonably large and clear aft deck work area, and its standard trawl
winch was suitable for the Kevlar line.
4.1.2 Lift Line Attachment Devices
Design of a lift line attachment device was of critical importance to this recovery
operation. All proposed concepts were again reviewed and deemed feasible, but it was
concluded that they all had a common fault - dependency on the waste container's strength
(integrity) to ensure a secure lifting attachment. This was considered risky since the
condition of the drum to be recovered was unknown. As a result, it was decided to
construct two attachment devices: a mechanical cam-lock "grabber" (Figure 2) requiring a
reasonably intact and solid LLW drum, and a wire rope harness assembly (Figure 3) which
required only that the drum not fall apart under its own weight.
The mechanical cam-lock grabber was intended for use on a partially buried drum
lying horizontally. The cam locks were designed to grip the package close to its horizontal
midline to avoid possible actuation interference from the sediment. Since the strength of
the drum could not be trusted, the cams were only intended to assist in tipping the drum
on its end to place its weight on a lift platform. The chain bridle to which the lift line
-------
42° N
D1976
2800m site
I 1978
\ 3800m site
37
36°^
70C
69°
Figure 1: Chart of Atlantic Ocean Disposal Sites
-------
Support Frame
- Chain Bridle
Attachment Eye
Lift Platform
Cam-Lock
Retaining Collar
Figure 2: Cam-lock Grabber Waste Package Lift Line Attachment Device
-------
Longitudinal Cable
Lifting Ring
Reciprocating
Actuation Arm
(Operated By
Submersible's
Manipulator)
Cable Ratchet \
Assembly
Tag Line
Attachment
Point
\
"Support BasePlate
Figure 3: Wire Rope Basket/Harness Waste Package Lift Line Attachment Device
-------
would be attached was located off-center so that when suspended in midwater, the drum
would tilt back against the horseshoe-shaped frame and the cams would not be used.
A prototype cam grabber was constructed and successfully tested with a 1400-pound
(650 kg.) drum of concrete. The device was heavy and bulky since a strong frame was
required to resist the outward forces on the cams during the up-ending operation and the
cams had to be located at the end of the drum opposite the lift platform. As constructed,
the device was difficult but not impossible for ALVIN to place in position with its
manipulator; however, the success of a second attachment device design resulted in this
mechanism being designated as a back-up device. It was never actually used for a waste
package recovery.
The primary attachment device was a wire rope harness/basket designed to be
placed over a waste package and then close around it, using a noose arrangement coupled
with a cable gripping rachet assembly. As shown in Figure 3, the basket/harness consisted
of three band cables and a longitudinal cable attached to a noose cable housed in tubular
steel to maintain its correct shape. The assembly was held in the open position by loose
attachment to a lightweight frame constructed of a round steel bar fastened to the steel
tubing. A lifting ring was provided to allow the submersible to pick up the assembly as
a unit and place it over the LLW package. Once in position, the cable ratchet was used
to tighten the noose cable, pulling the band cables around and under the drum. The cable
ratchet was operated by placing it, attached to a mounting board, on the sea floor and
working the hand lever with the submersible's manipulator. Initially, the ratchet would
move toward the basket/harness rather than tightening the noose, but eventually a pipe
spacer would contact the basket frame and prevent further relative movement, thereby
forcing the noose to tighten with further handle strokes.
The basket/harness assembly was extremely lightweight and, although bulky, could
be easily handled by the submersible. Operation of the cable ratchet was time consuming
but not difficult, and since the noose cable was also the lift cable, the basket would
continue to tighten once lifting began. Only three bands were included in the initial design,
but additions could be made in the field if warranted by the condition of the LLW drum
selected for recovery.
4.13 Lifting Equipment
The direct lift concept required ALVIN to attach the end of the lift line to the
LLW package. This was to be done using a 220 foot (100 meter) long, 1 inch diameter
(2.54 cm) braided nylon tag line after the end of the lift line was placed within 100 meters
of the drum. Use of the ALNAV long baseline acoustic navigation system would ensure
that the end of the lift line was properly positioned with respect to the drum.
11
-------
Upon arrival at the disposal site, a three-transponder acoustic net was to be
deployed by LULU, the support ship for ALVIN. The scientific team aboard ALVIN
would then locate a suitable LLW package, and carefully determine its position within the
navigation network/survey area. After ALVIN surfaced, the CAPE HENLOPEN would
lower the lift cable with a clump weight and an acoustic relay transponder attached to the
cable's end. Flotation material would be attached above the transponder to keep it off the
bottom if the cable went slack. The relay transponder would allow personnel on the
LULU to track the lift cable position and instruct the CAPE HENLOPEN how to
maneuver so that the cable clump was moved to within 100-meters of the LLW drum
(Figure 4). A description of the ALNAV navigation system in provided in the Appendix.
This planned approach to recovery was simple but imposed two requirements on
the lift vessel. First, it had to have excellent slow speed maneuverability and, also, station-
keeping ability so that the lift cable clump, once in position for attachment to the drum,
was not dragged away due to surface ship drifting. Secondly, the need for the relay
transponder with flotation meant that the end of the lift line would be a complicated string
of equipment requiring special handling gear for launch and retrieval (Figure 5).
The lift vessel available for this recovery, the CAPE HENLOPEN, did have the
required maneuverability, but its station-keeping ability while working in deep-ocean waters
was unknown. It also lacked a secondary winch that was considered important, during
planning, to use in handling complicated equipment. Thus, alternatives had to be devised
and substituted. Since reliable station-keeping was not available, all of the Kevlar lift line
was run off the winch and had surface buoys attached to it while ALVIN was involved in
the attachment phase (Figure 6). Because the secondary winch was not available, the
equipment string that would be used was designed for hand-over-hand launching and
recovery, utilizing static stoppers. The weight of each segment was kept to a limit that
could be moved safely, using the ship's capstans. Figure 5 shows the resulting configuration
of the lift line. NOTE: the 1500-pound (680 kg) clump weight was configured for release
by ALVIN once the line was attached to the LLW drum being retrieved.
4.2 Recovery Operations
The LULU sailed from Woods Hole for this recovery on July 27, 1976. Participants
aboard included Robert Dyer from the EPA Office of Radiation Programs (Project
Leader) and Cliff Winget, a WHOI research specialist (ALVIN Group Expedition Leader).
On the same date, the CAPE HENLOPEN sailed from Lewes, Delaware. Those aboard
included Stephen Dexter of the University of Delaware (Chief Scientist) and Peter
Colombo from Brookhaven National Laboratory (Chief of Recovery Operations).
12
-------
R/V Cape Hen/open
Navigation
Transponder
Relay
Transponder
Navigation
Transponder
Figure 4: Lift Cable Positioning - 1976 Atlantic Ocean Recovery Operation
-------
12,000 Ft.
(3,650m)
9 Sections
8-1/2 Ft. (2.5m) Ea.
Total Of
76-1/2 Ft. (22.5m)
Kevlar Lift Line
.445" (1.13cm) Dia.
\ 4 Floats, Syntactic Foam
j 20 Ibs. (9 kg) Buoyancy Each
4 Floats
4 Floats
8 2 Floats
-Acoustic
Transponder
2.66Ft. (1m)
5/16 Steel Cable
Swaged Eye
1/2" Ova I Link
5/8"Shackle
Typical Connection (10 places)
Oval Link
Release Hook Lanyard
1500 Ib. (680kg)
Clump Weight
Figure 5: Lift Cable Arrangement - 1976 Atlantic Ocean Recovery Operation
14
-------
P o o5
o o o o
R/V Cape Henlopen
01
Waste
Package
Alvin
Tag Line
-O-
Steel Buoys
and
Pick-up Line
ZTlQ
Lift Line
(See Figure 5)
Syntactic Foam Floats
Acoustic
rransponder
Clump Weight with
^Release Hook
"' ' '
100ft. (90m)
Figure 6: Lift Cable Attachment - 1976 Atlantic Ocean Recovery Operation
-------
The LULU arrived at the site on July 28th and deployed a three-transponder
navigation network. ALVIN dive number 676 commenced the following morning, and a
suitable 80-gallon LLW package was located for recovery (Figure 7). The waste package
was filled with concrete and half buried in the sediment. It showed no deformation due
to hydrostatic pressure effects or impact with the bottom on disposal. The cable
basket/harness lift line attachment device was deployed without difficulty (Figure 8), and
the remainder of that dive was spent collecting biological and sediment samples in the
vicinity of the LLW package.
The CAPE HENLOPEN positioned itself, approximately 1 kilometer east of the
position of the LLW package, on the evening of July 29th and lowered the Kevlar lift line
with clump weight and acoustic relay transponder (Figure 4) until the clump weight was
approximately 75 meters above the sea bottom. Maneuvering runs were then made, based
upon instructions from the acoustic navigation team aboard the LULU. The limited weight
of the clump weight, when in water, coupled with the nearly neutral buoyancy of the
Kevlar line made control of the lift line end difficult. Thus, it took approximately twelve
hours (until morning on July 30th) to achieve an acceptable placement of the lift line
clump weight within 100 meters of the LLW package. Also, by early morning, all of the
Kevlar line had been removed from the trawl winch and attached to a pair of 48-inch (1.2
meter) diameter steel buoys. Tag lines with small inflatable floats were attached to the
buoys to facilitate recovery operations.
ALVIN then dove again, carrying a 100-meter tag line to connect the LLW package
to the lift line (Figure 6). A1VIN next ran the tag line between the waste drum and the
lift line, made the required connection, and then detached the clump weight using the
safety release hook. No difficulties were encountered.
The CAPE HENLOPEN began final lifting procedures at approximately 2:00 a.m.
on July 31st. The steel buoys were recovered first, and then the Kevlar lift line was fed
back onto the trawl winch. Approximately six hours later, the LLW package reached the
surface (Figure 9). Recovery time was slowed because of the trawl winch level-wind
mechanism could not be used with the Kevlar lift line. Thus, manual assistance was
needed to obtain a uniform layering of lift line on the trawl winch drum. The last phase
of recovery involved retreving the hardware at the end of the lift line and bringing the
LLW package aboard the ship. Figure 5 shows the terminating hardware which consisted
of 2.5-meter long strings of wire rope connected together with shackles and oval connecting
links, the 1500-pound (680 kg) clump weight was attached to the end using a release hook
with a lanyard allowing activation by the submersible. The relay transponder was attached
to the string approximately 10 meters above the clump weight. Above that, the syntactic
foam flotation assemblies were attached as required to counteract the weight of the
transponder. Finally, the uppermost string and connecting link were shackled to the Kevlar
lift line which, in turn, passed through a large trawl block at the top of the ship's A-frame.
16
-------
The trawl winch brought the Kevlar line aboard until the first bottom hardware
connection point was level with the main deck. A tag line was then hooked into the oval
connecting link. Lifting continued until the connection was about to enter the trawl block.
In planning recovery operations, the length of the hardware strings had been calculated to
allow the lower connections to be on the main deck as the upper connections reached the
trawl block. This made it possible to hook a static tag line, secured to the deck, into the
lower connecting link and to transfer the load by paying out with the main winch. The lift
line was then paid out further while the first tag line was used to manually pull the upper
hardware string onboard, where it was secured to the deck. The main lift line was then
transferred to the top of the second hardware string and the process repeated.
Recovery of the hardware continued until reaching the tag line ALVIN had attached
between the clump weight and the LLW drum. The tag line was 100 meters of 1-inch
(2.54 cm) nylon without intermediate attachment points. The ship did not have a winch
or capstan suitable for retrieving this line, thus a less direct method was used. The size
of the trawl block used at the top of the A-frame had been selected to allow the passage
of the tag-line-to-lift-line attachment hardware. Thus, it was possible to bring the tag line
aboard through the trawl block until the attachment hardware was about to enter the
permanent main deck fair leads for the trawl winch. Soft line stoppers were then attached
to the lift tag line at the main deck level and the load transferred. It was then possible
to disconnect the Kevlar lift line from the nylon tag line and lead the nylon to a set of bits
on deck. Next, the remainder of the tag line was brought aboard hand-over-hand using
two capstans in conjunction with a pair of line stoppers. The nylon tag line was
continuously secured to the deck bits with minimal slack so that the load would be held
in the event one of the stoppers slipped.
Once the steel cable of the LLW drum attachment device reached the level of the
main deck, the Kevlar lift line was reattached and used to raise the drum from the water
(Figure 9). The LLW drum was held in this position while the level of radioactivity was
checked and while tag lines for bringing it aboard were attached. At the same time,
preparations were made on deck for storage of the drum in a transport overpack
container. The aft deck was covered with a waterproof tarpaulin, with sides elevated to
contain drippings from the LLW drum as it was brought aboard, lowered into the transport
container and secured with metal bands (Figures 13 and 18). The transport container (a
jet engine case) was then sealed shut and purged with argon gas to retard corrosion of the
LLW drum during transport to the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) for analysis.
Safety precautions were employed throughout the recovery operation. Access to the
stern area of the ship was restricted to a minimum number of required personnel, wearing
disposable overclothes which were removed prior to their leaving the stern area. During
the recovery, radiation levels were continuously monitored by a BNL health physicist and
all persons aboard wore dosimeters during the entire cruise.
17
-------
Figure 7: Low-Level Waste Package - 1976 Atlantic Ocean Recovery Operation
Figure 8: Deployment of Cable Attachment Basket/Harness by ALVIN
-------
Figure 9: Waste Package at the Surface - 1976 Atlantic Ocean Recovery Operation
-------
5 1977 RECOVERY, PACIFIC OCEAN (FARALLON ISLANDS) LLW DISPOSAL
SITE
5.1 Equipment Design and Preparations
The success of the 1976 LLW package recovery from the Atlantic Ocean 2800-
meter site led to the planning of a similar recovery in 1977. The Farallon Islands LLW
disposal site, located off the coast of California near San Francisco, actually includes two
subsites. Subsite A is centered at 37°38'N and 123°10'W with a water depth of 900 meters;
subsite B is centered at 37°37'N and 123°18'W with a water depth of 1700 meters (Figure
10). LLW packages were to be recovered from both subsites. A Canadian manned
submersible, PISCES VI, and its support ship, R/V PANDORA II were chosen for this
recovery operation, along with the University of Southern California's R/V VELERO IV
which would serve as the lift and recovery ship.
The WHOI ALVIN Group personnel were retained as advisors since the recovery
method was to be similar to that used previously with the ALVIN submersible. The
capabilities of PISCES VI and PANDORA II were such that the WHOI personnel were
able to use the same type of waste package lift line attachment equipment that was used
during the 1976 recovery. The VELERO provided an equipment advantage over the 1976
recovery in that she was equipped with a secondary winch that could be used during the
final stages of drum recovery. Surface and submersible navigation would be provided by
using the Motorola Mini-Ranger system and a Ferranti ORE, Inc. long baseline acoustic
acoustic system.
5.2 Recovery Operations
The VELERO sailed from San Francisco on October 17, 1977. Participants aboard
included Robert Dyer from the EPA Office of Radiation Programs (Project Leader), and
Michael Smookler of Interstate Electronics Corporation (Cruise Leader).
The PANDORA, with the PISCES submersible aboard, departed on October 18th
and arrived on station (900-meter subsite) at approximately noon. Using the Mini-Ranger
navigation system aboard VELERO, the PANDORA deployed three acoustic transponders
on the bottom. Once the bottom navigation system was in place and operational, the
VELERO would then be able to proceed independently to other areas of the Farallon
Islands LLW disposal site for sample collection activities, using the Mini-Ranger system.
The PANDORA and PISCES would use the acoustic transponder navigation system to
locate a suitable LLW package for recovery. Unfortunately, however, the bottom-deployed
navigational system did not work properly and the first PISCES dive was unsuccessful due
to the lack of a bottom reference point to use in searching for LLW drums.
20
-------
38° N
37C
123° W
Figure 10: Chart of Pacific Ocean Disposal Site
21
-------
On October 21st, the PISCES again dove on the 900-meter subsite using an acoustic
pinger deployed the previous night as a bottom reference marker. This dive successfully
located LLW packages but, without the baseline acoustic navigation system operating, it
would not be possible to navigate the lifting line into position near a drum selected for
recovery. As an alternative, the direct lift by submersible method was considered. The
LLW packages located during this dive were 55-gallon drums with an estimated weight of
875 pounds (397 kg), which was well within the 1500-pound (680 kg) payload capacity of
the PISCES.
That evening, after returning to the PANDORA, the PISCES crew adapted the
submersible for a direct lift recovery operation (Figures 11 and 12). The WHOI lift line
basket/harness attachment device was used in conjunction with a 100-foot (930.5 m) nylon
tag line attached to a releasable bridle beneath the PISCES. Once the lifting harness was
secured to a LLW drum, the tag line would be attached to the harness allowing the
PISCES to surface with the drum suspended beneath it. A second, short line was attached
to the tag line at the release point beneath the submersible and then secured to a point
which would be above water when PISCES surfaced. This would be an attachment point
for the VELERO's main lift line, to be used when transferring the LLW drum from
beneath the submersible to the recovery ship.
PISCES was launched again for a recovery attempt on the morning of October
22nd, and returned approximately five hours later with a 55-gallon LLW drum suspended
beneath. The VELERO then moved into position and attached its lift line to the drum's
tag line. PISCES then released the lift bridle tag line and the drum swung through the
water from beneath the submersible to underneath VELERO. Recovery then proceeded,
using the secondary winch on VELERO which was able to retrieve the nylon tag line
directly without the extra effort and special procedures used in the final stages of
recovering the LLW drum from the Atlantic 2800-meter site in 1976.
Safety precautions during this recovery were similar to those employed during the
1976 operations (Figures 13 and 18). Recovery of a second LLW drum, from the 1700
meter subsite, had been planned but poor weather conditions, particularly dense fog,
precluded that opportunity. The VELERO then returned to San Francisco where the
LLW drum from the 900-meter subsite was prepared for shipment to BNL for analysis.
22
-------
Cable Ratchet
Assembly
Pisces VI
Tool Holder
Attachment
Snap-Hook
Figure 11: Submersible PISCES VI Configured for 1977 Pacific Ocean Recovery
Figure 12: PISCES VI Deploying Waste Package Attachment Basket/Harness
23
-------
Figure 13: Pacific Disposal Site Waste Package Aboard R/V VELERO IV
-------
6 1978 RECOVERY, ATLANTIC OCEAN 3800-METER LLW DISPOSAL SITE
6.1 Equipment Design and Preparations
After successful recoveries of LLW packages in 1976 and 1977, it was decided to
attempt recovery of a waste drum in 1978 from the Atlantic Ocean 3800-meter LLW
Disposal Site, near the Hudson Canyon (Figure 1). Vessels for this recovery would be:
the WHOI submersible ALVIN and its mother ship R/V LULU; and the R/V ADVANCE
II, operated by the North Carolina Cape Fear Technical Institute.
Since records indicated that LLW packages disposed at this site were 55-gallon
drums and within the ALVIN's lifting capacity, provided that nonessential equipment was
removed, it was decided to again use the direct lift recovery method utilized in 1977.
Modifications to ALVIN for the recovery included: adding a lift line attachment point
underneath the submersible which was secured in place with explosive bolts for emergency
release purposes; running a stainless steel cable from the lift point, through a primary
release explosive cable cutter, to a pear link that would be the attachment point for the
LLW drum tag line; and securing a second line, attached to the link and running up the
side of the submersible, to a point that would be above water when at the surface (this was
the point to which swimmers would attach the main lift line from the recovery ship). The
lift line attachment device was identical to that used previously (Figure 3). A 100-meter,
5/8-inch (1.59 cm) diameter nylon tag line was shackled to the release pear link and
provided with a snap hook on the opposite end for attachment to the LLW drum lift
harness. This tag line and the lift harness were mounted on ALVIN's forward equipment
attachment frame, after the hardware normally carried in that area for scientific sampling
was removed (Figures 14 and 15).
The ADVANCE II was well-equipped to serve as the LLW package recovery vessel,
with deck gear superior to that available on the two ships that were used for this purpose
during the 1976 and 1977 recoveries. The main deck had a large stern A-frame with
multiple blocks, a trawl winch and a cargo boom. In addition, two large capstans and a
secondary winch were located on the 01 level with fair leads to the A-frame. A 100-meter,
1-inch (2.54 cm) diameter nylon lift line was prepared for use with a capstan when
transferring the LLW drum from beneath the ALVIN. Trawl wire and additional nylon
lines were also available if needed.
6.2 Recovery Operation
The LULU sailed from Woods Hole on June 20, 1978. ALVIN dive numbers 812
and 813 were conducted at the disposal site on June 23rd and 24th with Robert Dyer from
the EPA Office of Radiation Programs aboard as Project Leader. A suitable 55-gallon
25
-------
-
Figure 14: ALVIN with Scientific Samplers Mounted on Equipment Attachment Frame
-------
LLW drum was located during the second dive at a depth of 3970 meters. Its position was
fixed utilizing the ALNAV navigation system operated from the LULU. That evening,
ALVIN was prepared for the direct lift recovery by removing nonessential science support
equipment, adding additional syntactic foam flotation material, and installing the releasable
lift equipment. Additional lifting payload was also to be obtained by carrying just one
observer, rather than the usual two, during the recovery dive. Disposable ballast weights
were also attached to an auxiliary release assembly, mounted on the unused starboard
manipulator bracket, to compensate for the unusual buoyancy expected during descent due
to these modifications.
The ALVIN was launched at approximately 8:00 a.m.on June 25th and returned to
the surface six and one-half hours later with the LLW drum suspended beneath it. The
dive had included a two-hour descent and a three-hour ascent. The remaining time had
been used to relocate the LLW drum, attach the lift harness (Figure 16), and attach the
lift line to the harness.
Transfer, at the surface, of the drum from the ALVIN to the ADVANCE II lift
equipment was accomplished by using a small boat to transfer the nylon lift line to the
submersible, where it was shackled to the above-water attachment point by swimmers
(Figure 17). Next, slack was removed from the line and the swimmers made a final check
to ensure there were no entanglements. The lift harness, containing the LLW drum, was
then released utilizing the explosive cable cutter. The ensuing movement of the recovered
drum from under the ALVIN to below the stern of ADVANCE II occurred slowly with
no visible shock loads.
The LLW drum and harness were then raised to the sea surface by running the tag
line through a center trawl block at the top of the ADVANCE II stern-mounted A-frame,
and to a large capstan on the 01 level. The size of the trawl block was selected to allow
passage of the shackles and rings used to connect the lift line to the tag line carried by
ALVIN. No problems were encountered until the connection between the ALVIN tag line
and the LLW drum harness reached the surface. The snap hook used by ALVIN had a
T-handle, required for use with the manipulator arm, which would not pass through the
trawl block. The ADVANCE II's main trawl wire had to be connected to the cable of the
lifting harness to take up the load and remove the snap hook and tag line from ALVIN.
Once attached, the trawl wire was used for the remainder of the lifting operation.
On clearing the surface, the LLW drum was checked for radioactivity, tag lines were
attached an its overpack transport case was moved into position on deck. The drum was
then lowered into the transport case and secured with metal bands (Figure 18). The case
was sealed shut and purged with argon as with the other recovered LLW drums. Safety
precautions used were the same as those described previously, including the wearing of
protective clothing (Figure 18).
27
-------
Figure 15: ALVIN's Equipment Attachment Frame Being Outfitted for 1978 Recovery
Figure 16: Lifting Harness in Place Over Waste Package at 3800m Atlantic Site
28
-------
Figure 17: Transfer of Waste Package from ALVIN to R/V ADVANCE II
-------
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS
Each of the three recovery operations discussed in this report required two surface
ships and a submersible; total daily operational costs were approximately 30,000 1986
dollars.
A single LLW drum was retrieved during each recovery operation. At least one
additional day would have been needed at each site to recover another waste package.
The recovery techniques used were similar, allowing each recovery team to learn
from the experiences of the previous team. Thus, the third recovery, in 1978, clearly
presented the least difficulty despite the fact that the site depth and package weight were
close to the ALVIN's maximum limits of 4000 meters and 1000 pounds (450 kg).
The design of the recovery equipment was intended to allow utilization with waste
packages of unknown size, weight and general condition. Additionally, the equipment had
to be light weight, small, and with little or no power requirements, so it could be deployed
by a submersible. All of these objectives were met with the wire rope basket/harness
attachment device which performed perfectly on each recovery. The only drawback to its
use was the length of time needed for the submersible to tighten the closing noose used
the cable ratchet assembly - and this was really little time when compared to the time of
5-hour time of descent/ascent by the ALVIN for the recovery from 3970 meters.
Weaknesses of the recovery methods are the result of their overall operational
complexity. Success was dependent upon too many factors, including: properly coordinated
operation of two ships and a submersible; both surface and bottom-mounted navigation
systems; and various types of lifting devices/equipment. This level of complexity is not
abnormal for work operations in the deep-ocean, but it does decrease chances for success.
Also, the required knowledge and expertise, plus attention to detail, needed to achieve
success in this complex working environment add to the expense in doing it. For example,
the 1976 recovery involved bottom navigation/positioning of lifting cable that required
personnel on both ships to work in excess of twelve consecutive hours to achieve success
for that part of the recovery. Yet, on the following two recoveries, the surface lift method
was not used - thereby decreasing operational complexity and increasing the opportunity
for success.
30
-------
Figure 18: Waste Package in Lower Half of Transport Overpack
f
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
Waste packages, disposed in the oceans in the future, should be well labelled and
standardized in configuration. Considerations for future recovery should be designed in
the waste package.
Disposal operations should include verification of correct location and the proper
physical condition of packages after reaching the sea floor.
Present technology in the area of cable-controlled undersea robotic vehicles allows
the construction of special purpose recovery device/equipment that could be used with most
reasonably-sized oceanographic vessels. Such a device could be used to locate suitable
waste packages for recovery, to obtain sediment samples and measure radioactivity in the
vicinity of LLW drums, and to enclose a drum in a container suitable for direct lifting
aboard a surface ship and transport to a laboratory for analysis. Recovery costs for robotic
vehicles would be less than required for the operations in this report, since only one (and
a surface-type) ship would be needed. Around the clock working operations could result
in recovery of three or four waste packages per day. The major requirements for the
success of this option are to conduct reasonable planning and design efforts and field
testing, prior to waste disposal operations, to ensure recovery of waste packages by this
method.
32
-------
REFERENCES
Colombo, P., R.M. Neilson, Jr. and M.W. Kendig, "Analysis and Evaluation of a
Radioactive Waste Package Retrieved from the Atlantic Ocean 2800-Meter Disposal Site,"
EPA 520/1-82-009, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs,
Washington, DC, May 1982.
Dexter, S. G, "On Board Corrosion Analysis Of A Recovered Nuclear Waste Container,"
Technical Note ORP/TAD-79-2, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Radiation Programs, Washington DC, August 1979.
Dyer, R. S., "Environmental Surveys of Two Deepsea Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites
Using Submersibles," in Proceedings of an International Symposium on Management of
Radioactive Wastes From the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, pp. 317-338, International Atomic
Energy Agency, Vienna, 1976.
Hanselman, D. H. and W. Ryan, "1978 Atlantic 3800-Meter Radioactive Waste Disposal
Site Survey: Sedimentary, Micromorphologic and Geophysical Analyses," EPA 520/1-83-
017, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs, Washington,
DC, June 1983.
Rawson, M. and W. Ryan, "Geologic Observations at the 2800-Meter Radioactive Waste
Disposal Site and Associated Deepwater Dumpsite 106 (DWD-106) in the Atlantic Ocean,"
EPA 520/1-83-018, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs,
Washington, DC, September 1983.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Operations Report: A Survey of The
Farallon Islands 500-Fathom Radioactive Waste Disposal Site," Technical Note
ORP-75-1, EPA Office of Radiation Programs, Washington, DC, December 1975.
Walden, B. B., "Recovery of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Packages from Deep Ocean
Disposal Sites," WHOI-87-14, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA,
March 1987.
33
-------
APPENDIX
ALNAV Long Baseline Acoustic Navigation System
The ALNAV acoustic navigation system was developed at the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) to provide a method for accurately navigating the
submersible ALVIN relative to a fixed location on the sea floor. Before ALNAV was
developed, a simple range-bearing (short baseline) system existed on the support ship R/V
LULU, which allowed determining the location of the submersible relative to the ship.
The accuracy of the range-bearing system was suitable for safety purposes, but it was not
accurate enough to allow repeated turns to a given location on the sea floor during a dive
or series of dives. One its primary limiting factors was a result of using the surface vessel
as a reference point. Use of this reference meant that the submersible's bottom navigation
capabilities were limited to the accuracy of the ship's global navigation.
ALNAV (a bottom-referenced, long-baseline system) overcomes this limitation and
also provides an inherent accuracy due to the acoustic principles involved. The system
utilizes a network of bottom-moored acoustic transponders. The transponders are placed
in the area of interest by the surface ship and are designed to listen for a specific acoustic
frequency f 0. When this frequency is received, each transponder transmits at a different
frequency (f, to f „). In the simplest mode, the network is used by sending an f 0 acoustic
pulse and determining the times required to receive the f t through fn replies. These times
are roughly proportional to the distance between the sender/receiver and each transponder.
This information, however, is not sufficient to allow plotting a position for the
sender/receiver. Before this can be done, it is necessary to determine the positions of the
transponders relative to each other by conducting a survey.
The survey computer programs presently used by the ALNAV system are configured
for a two or three transponder net. They require as inputs, accurate pulse travel times for
all transponders from at least six survey stations. This information is then used to calculate
the location of the individual transponders relative to each other in three dimensional
space. Once this information is available, other ALNAV programs can plot the position
of a sender/receiver relative to the net with an accuracy dependent on the accuracy of the
survey.
Following completion of the survey the ALNAV system can be used in three
different navigation modes: ship-ship, ship-fish, and ship-submersible. The ship-ship mode
is the simplest in that the ship sends the interrogate acoustic pulse and receives the replies.
ALNAV calculations result in a position for the ship relative to the net. The ship's
independent surface navigation systems (Loran C, satellite navigation, etc.) can then be
used to determine the net's location in global coordinates.
A-l
-------
The ship-fish mode differs in that the ship transmits an interrogate pulse at /„ not
the receive frequency of any of the net transponders, but rather the receive frequency of
a relay transponder. This special transponder is designed for attachment to a towed fish
or any other vehicle in the water column for which navigation is desired. It receives
frequency f „ and replies at frequency f 0, the frequency of the net transponders. These,
therefore, receive the relay transponder's reply and transmit their own replies. The ship
determines the reply times for the relay and net transponders, thereby obtaining enough
information to determine the X, Y, Z position of the relay transponder relative to the net.
The ship-submersible mode is almost identical to the ship-fish mode except that the
submersible transmits frequency f0 on a timed basis rather than depending on receipt of
a ship generated fx pulse. This has the advantage of eliminating one acoustic path and
renders the system less sensitive to problems resulting from the submersible's acoustic
noise level, since the submersible does not have to detect an incoming f „ signal. For this
mode to function, both the submersible and the ship must have accurate, synchronized
clocks to allow the ship to determine when the submersible issues its f 0 pulse in order to
time the replies.
The above description is a simplification of the complexity of the ALNAV system.
Both the hardware and software have been under constant revision since the prototype
version was first used in 1968. The modes discussed above do not include submersible-
submersible, since until 1985, the computers required for the position calculations would
not fit within ALVIN's pressure hull. The references at the end of this appendix provide
more detailed information.
ALNAV, or a similar navigational capability, is essential for object recovery
operations of the type discussed in the body of this paper. Initially, accurate navigation
is required to conduct a search, although in recent years, Doppler sonar systems have
become available which allow an accurate search pattern to be run without a bottom
reference. Once a target is located, it is usually necessary to mark its location in a manner
which will allow the search vehicle or specifically-configured recovery vehicle to return to
it at a later time. All of the low-level radioactive waste package recoveries discussed in
this report involved separate search and recovery operations, with the bottom navigation
capability providing the means for repeatedly locating the selected target LLW package.
The 1976 recovery also involved using ALNAV in the ship-fish mode for positioning the
lift line clump weight close enough to the waste package target for tag line attachment.
This required a position accuracy of better than 100 meters, well within the ALNAV
accuracy of one percent of water depth.
A-2
-------
APPENDIX REFERENCES
Cline, J.B., "Acoustic Navigation: Surface and Subsurface," Proceedings of the National
Marine Navigation Meeting, Manned Deep Submergence Vehicles, the Institute of
Navigation, Washington, DC 1966.
Hunt, M.M., Marquet, W.M., Moller, D.A., Peal, K.R., Smith, W.K. and Spindel, R.C., An
Acoustic Navigation System. WHOI Technical Memorandum 74-6, Woods Hole, MA, 1974.
Loud, John F. and Scheer, Catherine O., Underwater Acoustic Navigation System, Report
to Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, Schenectady, NY, 1984.
Peal, K.R., Acoustic Navigation System Operating and Service Manual, WHOI Technical
Memorandum 4074, Woods Hole, MA, 1974.
Speiss, F.N., "Underwater Acoustic Positioning: Applications," Proceedings of the First
Marine Geodesy Symposium, Columbus, OH, MPL-U-35/66, 1966.
Van Ness, H.N., Mills, R.L., and Stewart, K.R., "An Acoustic Ray Ship Positioning and
Tracking System," Proceedings of the National Marine Navigation Meeting, Manned Deep
Submergence Vehicles, January 20-22, 1966, the Institute of Navigation, NRL Report
#6326.
Haehnle, R.L., "Survey Operations with Acoustic Positioning System," Naval Oceanographic
Office, Hydrographic Division, Informal Report 67-69, Bay St. Louis, MS, 1967.
Mackenzie, K.V., "Acoustic Behavior of Near-Bottom Sources Utilized for Navigation of
Deep Manned Submergence Vehicles," Marine Technology Society Journal, Volume 3,
Number 2, 1969.
Baxter, L. II, "A Method for Determining the Geographic Positions of Deep Towed
Instruments," Navigation: Journal of the Institute of Navigation, Volume 11, Number 2,
1964.
Eby, E.S., "Frenet Formulation of Three-Dimensional Ray Tracing," Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, Volume 42, 1287-1297, 1967.
Boegeman, D.E., Miller, G.J., and Normark, W.R., "Precise Positioning for Near-Bottom
Equipment Using a Relay Transponder," Marine Geophysical Researches I., 381-392, 1972.
Smith, W.K., Marquet, W.M., and Hunt, M.M., "Navigation Transponder Survey: Design
and Analysis," OCEANS '75 Conference Proceedings, San Diego, California, sponsored
by IEEE, 563-567, 1975.
A-3
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA 520/1-90-027
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Recovery of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Packages from
Deep-Ocean Disposal Sites
5. REPORT DATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Barrie B. Walden, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1 1. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Contract No. EPA 68-01-6272
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Radiation Programs
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
ANR-461
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This report presents the techniques used to recover low-level radioactive waste
packages from three deep-ocean disposal sites: Atlantic 2800-meter, Atlantic 3800-meter
and the Pacific (Farallon Islands) 900-meter. The design of the recovery equipment and
its utilization by the submersibles ALVIN and PISCES VI is described. Considerations
for future waste disposal and recovery techniques are provided.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATi Field, Group
1. low-level radioactive waste
2. recovery operations
3. deep-ocean disposal sites
4. subner s ible s
5. ALVIN
6. PISCES VI
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (T/ns Report!
Unclassified
n NO. OF PAGE;
44
20. SECURITY CLASS (Tins
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDI TION i s OBSOLETE
------- |