INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION
Subsidiary of A-T-O Inc.
A Technical Review of
        OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL
                                      AT
A SITE IN THE GULF OF MEXICO
 	J
                       By the Clemson Working Group
                              Report Prepared By
                      lEC-Environmental Engineering
                                      for the
                       Ocean Disposal Program office
                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                       under
                              Contract 68-01-0796

-------
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION
Subsidiary of A-T-O Inc.
                                             May  10,  1974
                                             446-221
          Mr. T. A. Wastler
          Chief, Ocean Disposal Program
          U. S. Environmental Protection  Agency
          Washington, D.C.  20460

          Dear Sir:

          This report presents a description of  the  work accomplished by the
          special working group convened  at  Clemson,  South Carolina,  on
          May 9 and 10, 1974.

          This workshop was convened  to review information pertinent  to the
          E.I. DuPont De Nemous and Company  permit application for disposal
          of liquid waste at interim  ocean disposal  site OD0518.

                                              Sincerely yours,

                                              INTERSTATE ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
                                              Environmental Engineering Division
                                                    ^ ^^r^-
                                             R.  C.  Timme
                                             General Manager
                                             Chairman  of Working Group
          RCT:STK:dk
      707 East Vermont Avenue, Post Office Box 3117, Anaheim, California 92803 Telephone 714-772-2811

-------
REPORT OF THE CLEMSON WORKING GROUP
                ON
       OCEAN DISPOSAL PERMIT
        73OD006B - Interim
            Convened on

        May 9 and 10, 1974

      Clemson, South Carolina


                for


  Environmental Protection Agency

      Ocean Disposal Program
        Report Prepared by
Interstate Electronics Corporation
Environmental Engineering Division
        Anaheim, California

-------
                        TABLE  OF  CONTENTS
SECTION  1 - INTRODUCTION




SECTION  2 - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS




SECTION  3 - TECHNICAL SUPPORT  FOR  RECOMMENDATIONS




           3.1   Diffusion  and  dispersion




           3.2   Circulation




           3.3   Chemical Characteristics




           3.4   Biological Interaction




SECTION  4 - BIBLIOGRAPHY




SECTION  5 - THE WORKING GROUP




           5.1   Participants Adresses




           5.2   Resumes of Participants
                                11

-------
                           Section  1
                          INTRODUCTION
1.1  BACKGROUND



On May 9 and 10, 1974, a special working group  was  convened  at



Rhodes  Engineering Research Center, Clemson University, Clemson,



South Carolina.  The purpose of this group was to review material



pertinent to Ocean Disposal Permit 73OD006B - Interim.








This permit was issued to E.  I.  DuPont  de  Nemous  &  Co.   It



authorized  disposal  of  liquid  wastes  from  their Belle, West



Virginia facility into the  waters  of  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  at



Interim  Ocean  Disposal  Site ODO518.  The center coordinates of



this site are 28° - 10' - 00" N, 89° - 25' - 00" W.  The site has



been approved for disposal of toxic chemicals.








Ocean disposal of the subject materials had been carried  out  by



DuPont  in  the  Gulf of Mexico since 1969.  Upon issuance of the



Final Regulations by the  U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency



(EPA),  in  October, 1973, DuPont applied for a new permit.  As a



result of this application, the permit application  was  reviewed



by  the  EPA Region III and Region VI.  Public hearings were held



by Region VI on December 19, 1973, and March 28, 1974.  Extensive
                              1-1

-------
testimony was given by  the  DuPont  Corporation,  the  State  of

Louisiana,  EPA  Regions  III  and  VI  and  interested citizens.

Subsequent to these hearings. Region IV made a final decision  to

deny  the  permit.   There  was  not general concurence with this

decision, resulting  in  the  requirement  of  final  review  and

decision with the administrator of the EPA,



The  working group was convened to review existing documentation,

introduce new and relevant information and present  findings  and

recommendations to the Chief, Ocean Disposal Program.



The information reviewed consisted of:

           1.    The original permit

           2.    Application for a new permit (dated  August  16,
                 1973, revised September 21, 1973)

           3.    Testimony  and  related  correspondence  of  the
                 December 19, 1973 hearing in New Orleans

           4.    Written answers to questions that  arose  during
                 the December 19 hearing

           5.    Testimony, related  correspondence  and  a  16mm
                 movie   describing   DuPont1s   ocean   disposal
                 practices  presented  at  the  March  28,   197U
                 hearing in New Orleans.


and   selected   supplemental   information.   The  material  was

submitted to the attendees for  review  prior  to  the  workshop.

Resumes  outlining  the  qualifications  and  experience of these

personnel are presented in Section 5.
                              1-2

-------
1.2  REVIEW RATIONALE

The ultimate fate of a waste depends on several factors:

     0     The composition of the waste.

     0     The method of introduction of a waste into the  marine
           system.

     0     The initial mixing of the waste upon introduction into
           the system.

     0     Interaction of the waste with the environment.


A chart showing  some  relationships  of  these  factors  to  the

ultimate fate is presented as Figure 1.



In  order to determine the fate of a waste, these factors must be

studied and, in  some  cases,  enumerated  in  order  to  make  a

judgment  as  to  the  possible  effects  a waste can have on the

environment.



The composition of the waste in question should  be  the  initial

factor  to  be  determined.   The  following  questions  must  be

answered.

     0     Is the waste liquid single-phase?

     o     What is its density?

     0     What is its chemical structure?


If it is not single-phase, but poly-phase:



     °     What are the separate phases?
                              1-3

-------
 WASTE   .  INTRODUCTION , I N IT IAL MI X ING
                   INTERACTION
                                                                              FATE
FIGURE  1
CHART SHOWING  REVIEW FACTORS

-------
     0     What are the density variations?



     0     What are the chemical structures of the waste?






Of course, other questions may be poised by answering these basic



questions, but, in some cases, these basic questions will provide



a firm base for advancing the analysis.








When waste characteristics are well-defined, the next  steps  are



to  determine  the  physical  parameters  of  the  waste disposal



operation and to calculate the initial mixing of the  waste  with



the  marine  waters.   As  a  minimum,  these  questions  must be



answered:



     0     Is the waste injected above or below the pycnocline?



     0     What is the disposal vessel?



     0     At what rate is the material released?



     0     What is the vessel speed?






Some basic calculations can then be  performed  which  will  give



estimates of the initial dispersion of the waste.








After   the  initial  dispersion,  and  possibly  during  initial




dispersion,  the  next  related  factor,  interaction  with   the



environment,  begins to take control of the process.  This is the



most complex portion of the cycle and deserves the most  critical




review.
                              1-5

-------
In  this  working  groups review of the waste disposal operation,



the above steps were followed.  As a basis for providing the most



critical review, a "worst case" approach  was  selected  as  most



fitting  to the problem.  "Worst case" elements of each step were



discussed and the elements most representative of this particular




waste disposal operation were selected for review.








Section 3 contains information used by the review group  in  this



analysis.  The individual subsections were authored by:








     3.1   Diffusion and Dispersion



                 Drs. B. Kinsman and B. Edge



     3.2   Circulation



                 Dr. W. Schroeder



     3.3   Chemical Characteristics



                 Dr. F. C. Alley and C. F. McFarlane



     3.4   Biological Interaction



                 Dr. W. Dunston
                               1-6

-------
                           Section  2
             RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
2.1  SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The  working  group  did  not  find  that  the   waste   material

constitutes a long time environmental hazard.  There were several

recommendations  for  areas that should be the subject of further

study.  These recommendations closely parallel  the  requirements

outlined in the draft text of sub part 228 of the regulations and

criteria.   However, the group recommends that DuPont be required

to strictly adhere to the phase out schedule  for  Antimony,  and

continue  their  work  on  alternative measures for the remaining

wastes to ensure meeting the full intent of Public Law 92-532.



2.2  RECOMMENDATIONS

In the opinion of this working group,  the  applicant  should  be

issued  an  Interim  Permit  and allowed to continue the disposal

operation with the following conditions imposed.

     1.    The schedule for completion of  the  glycol  treatment
           facilities  shall  be  adhered to strictly within that
           schedule presented in the hearing statements.

     2.    No glycol/antimony shall be allowed in the waste after
           1 July 1975.

     3.    A firm schedule for treatment of the SSS  and  Benomyl
           waste portions should be obtained as a requirement for
           issuing the permit.
                              2-1

-------
     4o    During dumping operations,  no crossing of tracks shall
           be allowed and tracks should be spaced  at  least  2,5
           nautical miles apart.

     5o    Conditions imposed in the proposed  permit  and  these
           proposed  additions  should go through periodic review
           by  a  special  committee  or  group  of   independent
           specialists.     Recommendations   of  this  group  for
           reasonable additional studies should be  made  binding
           as a condition of the permit.

     6,    When performing bioassays and insitu  monitoring,  the
           waste  composition  should  be  analyzed chemically in
           order to  provide  relationships  between  batches  of
           wastes used in tests.  Antimony, in particular, should
           be  quantified  on  all  waste  samples because of the
           large variations reported from  barge  load  to  barge
           load.


The  following  conditions  from the proposed permit of April 15,

1974 are considered important as conditions of the permit.

Studies:

     a.    Additional bioassays on representative endemic species
     shall be initiated  to determine if  some  long-term  chronic
     effects  occur  which  are not apparent in short term lethal
     dose bioassays.    Such  tests  should  include  but  not  be
     limited  to;     (1)   subjecting the organisms to the initial
     dose expected in the  waste  stream  with  the  dose  being
     diluted  with  time  to  0.01  of  the  96 hr. TLm, and then
     holding the organisms for at least 30 days  after  exposure;
     (2)  pulse-dosing organisms by periodically repeating studies
     outlined  in  (1)   but  with  a  frequency of 7 days and (3)
     measurement  of   the  body  burdens   of   as   many   waste
     constituents  as possible from organisms studied in (1)  and
     (2).    Besides  monitoring  mortality  and  bioaccumulation,
     these  bioassays should also be monitored for any impairment
     of behavior including locomotion, feeding and  reproduction.
     Among  other  species,  the larvae of brown shrimp should be
     used in all but  the reproductive bioassays.

     b.    Bioaccumulation and biomagnification studies shall  be
     conducted  to supplement bioaccumulation studies outlined in
     (1)  above.   Transfer of  waste  shall  be  measured  in  two
     simple  marine  food chains; seawater medium, phytoplankton;
     menhaden,, seawater   medium;  phytoplankton;  shrimp  larvael
                              2-2

-------
Several  species of phytoplankton shall be employed and body
burdens measured on all appropriate waste constituents.

c.    Biodegradation:   Studies  shall   be   conducted   to
determine  the biodegradability of the barged waste material
in the marine ecosystem.  Organisms indigenous to  the  Gulf
of  Mexico  shall  be  used in these studies, which shall be
conducted both for chemical and biological information.

d.    Mixed natural phytoplankton populations representative
of all common seasonal populations shall  be  bioassayed  to
determine the selective potential of the waste.

e.    The in  situ  assessment  of  the  species  abundance,
distribution,   and  condition  planktonic  biota  shall  be
determined before dumping and at short time intervals  after
discharge  has  begun within the wake of the barge.  Species
composition  and  biomass  shall  be  determined.   Plankton
samplings  shall  be  such  that  at least 5 samplings occur
within the first hour following discharge.

f.    All methods used and  reporting  procedures  shall  be
agreeable  with  the Regional Administrator, EPA, Region VI.
All of the above studies shall be  completed  on  or  before
December 15, 1974.

g.    Permittee shall provide to the Regional  Administrator
within  90  days  from  the effective date of this permit, a
complete qualitative  and  quantitative  assessment  of  the
constitutents of their "other organics".
                         2-3

-------
                           Section  3
              TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1  DIFFUSION AND DISPERSION








3.1.1  Introduction



An introduced pollutant may be either passive; i.e., conservative



and moving with the fluid  motion  or  active;  i.e.,  undergoing



modification  and  motion  not shared by the diluting water.  The



processess which diffuse fluid-attached properties are  molecular



and  turbulent.   Molecular diffusion is the only process at work



in still water and in laminar flow, and it has very  slow  rates.



In  turbulent  flows, while molecular diffusion is still at work,



turbulent diffusion is orders  of  magnitude  more  effective  in



spreading  material.   In natural flows, the Reynolds numbers are



usually so large that turbulence is almost always present.








A patch of contaminant in a turbulent environment will spread  at



a  rate  which  depends  on  the  size of the patch.  Eddies with



dimensions less than a patch size will act to tear it  apart  and



spread  it.   Those  with  dimensions greater than the patch size



will simply advect the whole patch.  As time passes and the  size
                              3-1

-------
of the patch increases,  the  larger eddies which formerly advected



the patch, become effective  in diffusing it.







Since   turbulence   plays  the  dominant  role  in  dispersing   a



contaminant introduced  into  a  natural environment, a knowledge  of



the structure of the turbulence is necessary.  Ideally, one  would



like to know the spectrum  tensor of the turbulence.
                          r              •*•->•
                          I     -*-->-    — -i k^ • y-

                          l^.dr^tje
 ij(K,x,t) = (2IirJ \R^(rlxlt)e~i*'* dr       (1)





where
      R..(r,x,t)  =  u. (x-Jjr,t)  u.(x+Jsr,t)             (2)






 is  the  covariance   tensor  of  the  velocity  field  at  a  given



 instant, uj .: are velocity components and the overbar denotes  some



 suitably defined mean.








 From  the   spectrum  tensor,  the scalar energy tensor  E (K ) can  be



 obtained by contracting \i>, . and integrating over spherical shells



 radius  < in wave number space,
      E (K) = h\ 4'i . (< )  dS (K) .                          (3)





      One has
             E(K) dK .                                 (4)
                               3-2

-------
Information about an oceanic dump site carrying  this  weight  of



detail  cannot  be  had.   For practical work, one must rely on a



much less  specific  characterization  of  the  turbulence.   The



consequence  is  uncertainty   about  the precise situation to be



faced and the details of the dispersion.  However, useful general



statements can be made and, with due allowance, action taken with



little risk.








Not all random motions which occur in the  ocean  are  turbulent.



It  is  characteristic  of  turbulent  motion that its associated



vorticity is random and that there is no unique relation  between



the  frequency  and  wave  number  of  the  Fourier  modes.  This



distinguishes turbulence from, say, random wave motion  in  which



there  is  a  unique  functional counection between frequency and



wave number.   Turbulence  is  characteristically  diffusive  and



dissipative.








In  the ocean, a well-developed surface-mixed layer, in which the



motion is turbulent, is often present.  In the  Gulf  of  Mexico,



this  mixed  layer  is  typically  30  m  (100 ft) deep.  Phillips



 (1966) describes the mechanism of  its  development.   "When  the



wind  flows across the surface of the water, a tangential surface



stress is developed both directly from the interfacial stress and



indirectly by the rate of momentum loss from the surface waves by



such processes as wave breaking.  Below the surface, a  turbulent
                              3-3

-------
mixed  layer  develops.   If  the underlying region is statically




stable or neutral; that is,  if








     N2>0 [N is the Brunt-Vaisala frequency]








the interface between the turbulent and  non-turbulent  fluid  is



very  sharp,  and  remains  so as the turbulence erodes the lower



fluid by entrainment.  The temperature and salinity in the  mixed



layer  are  both  virtually  uniform  as  a  result  of turbulent



diffusion, and unless N2 = 0, the continued erosion results in an



increasing contrast between the properties of the  water  in  the



mixed  layer  and  that immediately below." Thus, while a passive



pollutant introduced  into  the  turbulent  mixed  layer  can  be



expected  to  disperse  rapidly  within  the mixed layer, it will



penetrate the deeper water only slowly, if at all.








The dispersion of a pollutant in the mixed  layer  is  much  more



rapid  in  the  horizontal  than  it  is  in  the  vertical.  The



numerical values  selected for the estimates which follow are not



specific to the dump site, but they are typical of  the  Gulf  of



Mexico — and conservative.
                              3-4

-------
3.1.2  Active Pollutants



If  the  pollutant  is  active  rather  than  passive, then those



properties inherent in its activity must be used  to  modify  the



results deduced for a passive contaminant.








A. pollutant may "decay" as time passes, by whatever process, from



an  undesirable  form  to a tolerable form and thus pass from the



necessity for consideration.  Everywhere  within  the  dispersing



patch  and  at  any time after the introduction of a pollutant of



this kind, the concentrations of the  undesirable  form  will  be



found  to  be  smaller  than  those which would occur had it been



passive.  Thus, we have an effect which reinforces  the  physical



dispersion of the pollutant.








A pollutant which flocculates or which is absorbed on particulate



matter large enough to fall, will pass out of the turbulent mixed



layer into the deeper water.  Thus, material of this kind will be



more  widely dispersed in the vertical than a passive contaminant



would be.  Within the lower layer, the  rates  of  dispersion  by



turbulence are much reduced.  However, the lower layer is usually



quite  deep  and,  if  the  particle  rate  of  fall is slow, the



contaminant may come to rest over a wide region of the bottom.








A third kind of "activity", although not strictly an activity  of



the pollutant, is concentration by the biota.  The mixed layer is
                               3-5

-------
also  the  euphotic  zone where the phytoplankton, which form the

base of the  food  chain,  are  found.   If  organisms  have  the

capacity to accumulate and retain a pollutant to levels in excess

of  the  levels  in  the  surrounding  water, if further they are

grazed by forms which are motile, deductions from the motion of  a

passive contaminant should be replaced by considerations based on

biological uptake rates and migration.



Assumptions:

      1.   The  pollutant is passive.

      2.   The  pollutant is introduced into  the  turbulent  mixed
          layer.

      3.   The  turbulent  mixed   layer   has  comparatively   high
          turbulence  intensities.

      4.   The  parameters of the turbulent mixed layer   used  etc.
          —are   not  values  determined for  the   dump site but
          rather  typical values to be expected  in   the Gulf   of
          Mexico   chosen  to  yield  a   conservative estimate  of
          dispersion.

      5.   The  mechanisms that lead to the  establishment   of  the
          turbulent   mixed  layer transfer matter  from the  lower
           layer  to the  mixed layer, but  are not such as to effect
           a downward  transport.

      6.   The  mechanism of turbulent  dispersion within  the   mixed
           layer   is   much  more  effective horizontally  than  it  is
           vertically.

      7.    The  body of water beneath the  mixed  layer  has   motions
           with  turbulent  intensities   far smaller than  does the
           mixed   layer   except   possibly within   a  thin  bottom
           boundary layer.

      8.    The  low wave  number components of  the   motion   in  the
           mixed   layer   will advect the  pollutant out of  the dump
           site.
                               3-6

-------
Considering  a  very  simplistic  approach  to  the  problem   of

dispersion  of wastes, it can be assumed that there are two major

mechanisms responsible for the reduction of concentration of  the

waste in the mixed layer.  The first mechanism is associated with

the  immediate  or  very rapid mixing as the waste is pumped into

the wake of the barge.  The second mechanism which proceeds at  a

much  slower  rate is due to the dispersion caused by the ambient

turbulence of the mixed surface layer.



There have been several attempts to  quantify  the  concentration

that  results  in the wake of the barge.  A. good summary of these

techniques is give by Clark, Rittall, Baumgartner and  Dyram  The

most  useful relationship for concentration along the center-line

of the wake was:
        Co(0.493)g
         du(kt)i2
Where:
     C= concentration
     Co=  initial  concentration
     q= volumetric discharge
     d= mixing depth
     u= barge speed
     k= turbulent dispersion coefficient
     t= time
values of k have been  shown to vary between  1.0ft2/sec, and  30.0

ftz/sec.
                               3-7

-------
Assuming the parameters:

     k= 1.0ftz/sec
     d= 30 ft
     q= 1.56 cfs
     u= U.8 f/s
     Co=1400  ppm (maximum allowable concentration of antimony  in
               the waste is used as an indicator species)


yields the function:


     c =  7.47^                                     (6)


Now, after one minute, the antimony concentration would  be   0.96

ppm.   Trying  to  be  as conservative as possible, it is assumed

that no additional mixing  occurs  in  the  wake  of  the  barge.

Roughly,  this  corresponds  to  a uniform spread of the material

throughout a  horizontal  distance  of  100  ft  and  a  vertical

distance  of  23 feet.  This is again somewhat conservative since

the patch will occupy a somewhat larger area than the  barge  and

thus, every point will not be at the maximum concentration at the

center-line.



This  plume  behind the barge with an antimony concentration  of 1

ppm will  now  mix  with  the  ambient  water  due  primarily  to

turbulent dispersion  and  will  continue  dispersing   until the

levels reach the natural background.



Simplified, the situation will resemble that shown  in   Figure   2

where  the  strip represents the wake of the barge.  Consider now
                               3-8

-------
that a vertical slice can be taken and will be representative  in


two dimensions of the remainder of the plume.  The problem now is


the  dispersion  of the material in a two-dimensional field which


can be assumed to follow:
        = E
           x
There  are,  of  course,  several  assumptions  leading  to  this


equation including:


      1.   There are no cross currents in either direction;


      2.   The dispersion coefficients are not a function of space


          or time; and


      3.   Turbulent   dispersion  obeys  the   laws   of   Fickial


          diffusion only at a different scale.




Solution of this equation requires  a finite difference or finite


element  technique  for the situation that is described in Figure


2.  This situation has been schematized using the finite  element


concept  as  shown  in  Figure 3.  It is further assumed that the


dispersion does not carry the material below  the  mixing  layer.


The   vertical  dispersion  coefficient  was  assumed  to  be 0.01


ft2/sec.  A computer  routine was used with these coefficients and


the boundary  conditions  mentioned  above  in  the  solution  of


equation 7.  The results of the computer simulator for 50 minutes


after  the  barge  has  passed  the point in question is shown in
                               3-9

-------
Figure 4.   A summary of the  change  in  the  maximum  centerline

concentration is given in Table 1.
                             TABLE 1


      CONCENTRATIONS OF ANTIMONY ALONG CENTERLINE OF PLUME


          TIME  (minutes)       CONCENTRATION  (ppm)

          0                   1.0
          25                  0.88
          50                  0.72
          500                 0.07
          1000                0.005
          1440                0.0005
Thus, after 24 hours the antimony component of the waste from the

barge has been diluted after the initial mixing in  the  wake   of

the barge to 0.5 ppb.  This is approximately the background  level

of antimony.
                              3-10

-------
U)
I
      FIGURE 2
  A  HIGHLY  STRATIFIED  MARINE  SYSTEM ON WHICH A BARGE
HAS  DUMPED  A LOAD OF WASTE  IN THE  INDICATED MIXING  ZONE
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION

-------
FIGURE 3
 CROSS-SECTIONAL VIEW OF WATER  SYSTEM SHOWING THE
MIXING ZONE  AND THE FINITE ELEMENT  REPRESENTATION
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION

-------
  tn
  CO

  a
Q_

fem
O
en
  LD
O
z:
CP°
o°
             -H	
              50, OQ
                                            —I	1	\	—
                                             SOD,aa      350,ao     400.aa
                                                  (X101  j
a.ao
.oa      LSQ.UCJ     200, oa      250,00
HGRIZCJNTflL DISTRNCE  (METERS)
FIGURE 4
CONCENTRATION OF ANTIMONY ALONG  THE SURFACE
  50 MINUTES  AFTER PASSAGE OF  THE BARGE
                                                                                    INTERSTATE
                                                                                    ELBCTROMCS
                                                                                    CORPORATION

-------
3.2  HYDROGRAPHY

3.2.1  Currents

     Types - See Table 2

     Directions     0-360°

     Speeds    0-4 kts (excluding periods of severe weather  i.e.

                    hurricanes)



Specific  characterization of current patterns in and adjacent to

the study site is nearly, if not completely, impossible based  on

the  existing  data.   Types of currents to be expected are listed

in Table 2.  The major current feature is the  loop  current  and

"rings"  which  are  shed  by  this current.  Numerous references

dealing with the loop  current  are  cited  in  Section  4.   The

consensus  of many of the investigators studying the loop current

and/or water circulations in the Gulf of Mexico is that  a  great

deal  of  additional  data  is needed before anything more than a

gross preliminary description can be made.
                             TABLE 2
             TYPES OF CURRENTS THAT CAN BE EXPECTED
                 IN OR ADJACENT TO THE DUMP SITE
     1.    TIDAL


     2.    LOCAL WIND DRIVEN
                              3-14

-------
                            TABLE 2  (cent.
          Surface

          Sub-surface


     3.    REGIONAL WIND DRIVEN

          Surface

          Sub-surface


     4.    LOOP CURRENT AND RINGS


     5.    BOTTOM
     6.   SURFACE FRESH OR BRACKISH WATER LENS FLOWING  FROM  THE
          MISSISSIPPI RIVER
     7.   COMBINATIONS AND INTERACTIONS OF  1 through 6.


3.2.2  Mixed Layer  (Depth of Seasonal Pycnocline)

     Vertical extent:    0-100m; with annual variations

     Controlled by: a.  Vertical thermal structure

                    b.  Salinity structure

                    c.  combinations of a and b



     (for additional information see references  1,  10, 12 and  15)



3.2.3  Oxygen Distribution

     Range of values  (ml/1):       0.5-10.2

          Central eastern Gulf:              2.5-7.0    (ref.4)

          Mississippi/Alabama Cont. Shelf:   4.0-9.2    (ref.3)

          Louisiana Continental Shelf:       0.5-10.2   (ref.2)
                              3-15

-------
Vertical Distribution



     See References 2, 3, 4, 5,  12,  15
                         3-16

-------
3.3  CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS



The composite waste as discharged into  the  Gulf  is  a  varying



mixture  of  organics  and natural brines containing some 700-800



ppm antimony.  The major organic  constituents,  comprising  some



95%  of  the  total  organics  present  are sodium terephthalate,



ethylene glycol, and sodium styrene sulfonate.








Due to the presence of the inorganic salts,  the  waste  specific



gravity  is  greater  than sea water and averages in the range of



1.12 to  1.13.  The pH of the waste will vary between 6.0 and 10.0



but normally runs somewhat  closer  to  7.0  to  8.0.   Suspended



solids are reported to be 5000 ppm.








The organic constituents in the waste should be biodegradable and



would not appear to present a long lasting environmental problem.



Most   of   the   substances  present  in  the  waste  have  been



satisfactorily treated in biological waste disposal systems.








Antimony is present in the waste in several forms;  however,  the



predominant  varieties  appear  to  be soluble glycolates and the



trioxide.   The  trioxide  may  exist  in  crystalline  form   at



concentrations  found  in  the waste but solubility data indicate



that all solid trioxide particles should dissolve at the dilution



expected immediately after the waste is discharged into the barge




wake.
                              3-17

-------
The  antimony  present  in  the  waste  must  be  considered   as



potentially  hazardous to the environment in concentrations above



a few parts per million.   The toxicity of antimony  compounds  to



plants and animals is well documented.







3.3.1  Waste Flocculation in the Presence of Sea Water



No  evidence  exists  or  is  there  reason  to  believe that any



constituent of the waste will  produce  significant  precipitates



when mixed with sea water.  Particulate antimony trioxide present



in  the  waste  should dissolve on dilution with sea water at the



mixing rates projected by dispersion models.







3.3.2  Additional Comments and Supporting Calculations



     1.   The  total  oxygen  demand  of  the  waste,  based   on



     requiring  one  pound  of  oxygen  for  one pound of carbon,



     contained in one barge load is 800 tons.  This would depress



     a cubic mile of water by .116 ppm of oxygen.







     2.   Organics similar to those  present  in  the  waste  are



     treated  in industrial waste treatment plants.  The organics



     are broken down by  bacteria.   The  treatment  plants  have



     residence times of approximately two days.








     3.   Solubility of Sb in water at 15°C is .55 x 10-* moles/1



     or 9.35 x 10-3 g/1.   In the wastes, the Sb is in amounts  of
                              3-18

-------
up  to  1.3  x  103 mg/1 or  1.3 g/1.  Dilutions of about  139



times are necessary for dissolving the Sb.
4.   If the waste were injected below the  productive  zone,



the  lower  mixing  rate  that  would be expected, and lower



dissolved oxygen level would cause lower dilution and slower



breakdown of organic portions of the waste and a  depression



of dissolved oxygen in a low-oxygen environment.
                          3-19

-------
3.4  BIOLOGICAL INTERACTION



3.4.1  Biomass-Area Characterizations



Based  on  available  data  (ref.  4 and included references), the



disposal site is one of the richest areas in the Gulf of  Mexico.



Particulate  and dissolved organic carbon is highest in the shelf



area of the north central Gulf reflecting the  large  input  from



the  production of benthic macrophytic plants and the Mississippi



River.  This is important to the detrital food chain in the  Gulf



coastal  area  which  is responsible in part for the shrimp crop.



Phytoplankton production  (C1* Production and  Chlorophyll  Cone.)



is  also  substantial  in  this area being similar to other shelf



areas in the Gulf.  A large portion  (75-90%)   of  marine  primary



and  secondary  production  takes place in a rather narrow inner-



shelf strip often only 10-20 miles  wide  depending  on  exchange



rates and river input.  Vertically, the biomass can be defined by



several  measurements  chlorophyll  maxima, depth of the euphotic



zone, the distribution of particulate carbon and others.








Data on these is available  for  the  Gulf  of  Mexico;  but,  as



discussed  in  the following paragraphs, it would be important to



have specific information on some of these at the dump site.








Based on the dispersion and dilution information and  the  oxygen



values  for  the  Gulf  in  the region of the dump site  (3-6 ml/1



bottom; 6-10 ml/1 surface) oxygen depletion does not appear to be
                              3-20

-------
a serious consideration.  The waste organics as reported  do  not



appear to be particularly refractory to biological degradation.








As  stated  above,  the  organic constituents of the waste appear



degradable while initial toxicities might occur, recovery of  the



biota could be expected.








The  portion  of  the  waste  that  is  of  concern  is antimony.



Unquestionably, antimony is a toxic substance as plainly reported



by H.E.W., California  Board  of  Health,  EPA  Guidelines,  etc.



There  is  very little information available upon which to base a



judgment as to the fate of  a  complex  mixture  of  organic  and



inorganic   forms   of   antimony   in  the  marine  environment.



Information available on other heavy metals  (Hg, Cd, Cu)  suggest



that  when  they  are  introduced into the marine system they are



rapidly adsorbed and absorbed by the  particulate  and  dissolved



organic  material  in  the water column  (Ref. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,



23, 24, 25) at rates on a time scale of  minute  -  hours.   This



particular  organic  material  in  the euphotic zone represents a



large portion of the food for the  next  trophic  levels—shrimp,



oysters, fish.  The initial killing or inhibition of a portion of



marine biota is not as important here as is the rapid association



of  a  toxic  heavy  metal with the organic cycle of the sea.  We



certainly don't know what the rates of transfer or eventual  fate



of  antimony  would be in the food chain.  From all we know about
                              3-21

-------
other substances, we can certainly say  that  antimony  would   be
transferred  to  other  trophic  levels  in  the  sea.   A marine
organism, be it fish, plant, or shrimp, reflects most  intimately
its  environment.   The antimony added to the Gulf of Mexico will
be reflected in the organisms that live in the Gulf of Mexico.
Also important:
     1.   Sediment-air-bacteria transfermations cycle.  (Ref. 21)
     2.   Direct uptake by fish and oysters.  (Ref. 21)

Comments on toxicity tests:
     1.   The  DuPont  data  complies   with   the   regulations.
          However,  G. breve is the red tide organism and not one
          of the 30 major dinoflagellates in the area reported  by
          Balech,  1967.  C_._ nana  (no clone  given)  and  Isocysis
          are not representative.
     2.   There should be an accurate chemical  analysis  of  the
          effluent  batch  used  for the bioassay procedure or  at
          least a clear identification.  The effluent as reported
          by DuPont is quite variable.
     3.   Antimony analysis of fish and shrimp from the Gulf area
          would have been more useful than the bioassays with the
          organic constituents.
     4.   Page 00078  (IEC briefing document), is  the  value  for
          antimony correct?   (2 ug/ml)
                              3-22

-------
3.4.2  Additional Information



On a short term basis, it would be useful to know the particulate



carbon and chlorophyll vertical profiles in the area.  This would



perhaps  suggest  the  best  depths  for  the  introduction  of a



pollutant below the area of maximum production.   While  it  will



have  little  relevence  to  the  decision  to dump at present, a



seasonal  (4)  basic  environmental   study   should   be   made.



(Chlorphyll,   C1*   production,  particulate  carbon,  dissolved



organic carbon, nitrate, phosphate, silicate,  Zooplankton  tows,



benthic samples, trawls)








Techniques   are  available  to  measure  low  concentrations  of



antimony by atomic absorption instruments with a heated  graphite



furnace.  This would be valuable for measuring:



     1.   Antimony concentration in the  benthos  near  the  dump



          site and at a control site.



     2.   Antimony concentration in shrimp and zoo-plankton taken



          in tows in the wake of the barge  quarter  to  one-half



          mile per way.  Also compared to a control site.



     3.   The antimony concentration in  the  millipore  filtered



          water  and  in the particulate carbon filtered from  the



          water in the plume in the wake of the barge   (also   the



          concentration at a control site).
                               3-23

-------
                           Section  4
                 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF CITED MATERIAL










1.    Schroeder, W.W. and Berner, L.T., The Oceanic Waters of  the



     Gulf  of  Mexico  and  Yucatan  Strait During July^ 1969 (In



     Press)








2.    Southwest Research Institute, Hydrography on  the  Nearshore



     Continental  Shelf  of  South  Central  Louisiana, Southwest



     Research Institute OETKING, October, 1973








3.    Smith, Robert E (Ed), Proceedings  of  Marine  Environmental




     Implications  of  Offshore  Drillingf Eastern Gulf of Mexico



     State Univergity System of Florida Institue of_ Oceanography,



     March  1974,  2ii~ib.   Emphasis:   Hydrographic  and  Current



     Structure  on  Western Continental Shelf of the Northeastern




     Gulf of Mexico P-395








4.    American Geographical Society, Serial Atlag  of  the  Marine



     Environment,  Folio  22, American Geographical Society  1972,



     Contribution 502 LOG Map 62-2
                              4-1

-------
5.    Capurro,   L.R.A.   (Ed) ,   Contributions   on   the   Physical
     Oceanography  of   the  Gull  of Mexico, Gulf Publishing Co.,
     Houston,   Texas  1970.     Emphasis:     Chapter   1,   Winter
     Circulation Patterns and Property Distributions


6.    Swift, P.J.,  Duane,  D.B.,  Pilkey,   O.H.,  Shelf  Sediment
     Transport:  Process and Pattern


7.    Dowden Hutchison  & Ross, Stroudsberg,  Pa.  1972, LOG 72-88985


8.    Ichiye,  Kero  &   Carnes,   Assessment   of   Currents   and
     Hydrography  of  the  Eastern  Gulf  of Mexico, Department of
     Oceaography, Texas ASM,  Contribution  601,  September, 1973

                                                     T
9.    Leipper,  Dale F-, A Sequence of Current Patterns in the Gulf
     of Mexico, Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M,  Reference
     67-9, June 1967


10.  U.S. Fish  and Wildlife  Service,  Separate  from  Gulf  of
     Mexico, It's Origin Waters and Marine  Life, Fishery Bulletin
     89, Washington, 1954
     °f the Gulf of Mexico, Unpublished paper.
                                   ,  The Me so  Scale  Circulation
                              4-2

-------
12.   State   University   System   of   Florida   Institute    of



     Oceanography,  A Summary of Knowledge of the Eastern Gulf of



     Mexico, 1973








13.   Phillips, O.M., The Dynamicg of the Upper  Ocean,  Cambridge



     University Press, London, 1966  LOG 66-17054








14.   U.S.  Navy  Oceaographic  Office,  Atla^s  of  Pilot  Charts^




     Central   American   Waters   and   South   Atlantic  Ocean,



     Publication 106, 1969








15.   Nowlin, W.D. Jr., Water Masses and  General  Circulation  of



     the Gulf of Mexico, Oceanology International, February 1971,




     p. 28-33








16.   Southwest Research  Institute,  Currents  on  the  Nearshore



     Continental  Shelf  of  South Central Louisiana, preliminary




     draft OEI-01, OETKING, October 1973








17.   Huckabee, J.W., Blaylock,  E.G.,  Transfer  of  Mercury,  and



     Cadmium  from Terrestrial to Aquatic Ecosystems, from: Metal



     Ions in Biolgoical Systems Plenum Press, New York








18.   Dalar, S.G. et al..  Mercury  Accumulation  by.  Myriophyllum



     Spec at urn L, from:  Environmental Letters 1971, p.  191-198
                              4-3

-------
19.  Rothstein, A., Cell Membrane as  Site  of  Action  of  Heavy



     Metals, Federation Proceedings, Volume 18, 1959








20.  Davies, A.G.,  The Growth Kinetics of Isochrysis Galleana  in



     Culture  Containing  Sub  Lethal  Concentrations of Mercuric



     Chrloride, J.  Marine Biology Ass., U.K.,  1974, p. 157-169








21.  Wood, J.M., Biological Cycles  for  Toxic  Elements  in  the




     Environment, Science, Volume 183, March 15, 1974








22.  Jensen, S., and Jernelove, A.,  "Biological  Methylation  of



     Mercury in Aquatic Organism." Nature (G.B.) 233, 5207 (1969)








23.  Wood, J.M., et al., "Synthesis of  Methyl-mercury  Compounds



     by Extracts of a Methanogenic Bacterium." Nature (G.B.)  220,



     173  (1968)








24.  Glooschenki, W.A. Accumulation of 203Hg by a  Marine  Diatom



     Chaetoceros Costatum, J. Physiol., 5, 224, 1969








25.  Gutknecht, J.  D., Uptake, Retention, and Loss of Zinc-65 and



     Cesium-137 by  Littoral Algae, Thesis,  University  of  North



     Carolina,  Chapel Hill, 1964
                              4-4

-------
26.   U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Environmental  Conditions



     within Specified Geographical Regions, Final report prepared



     for the National Data Buoy Center, National Ocean Survey, p.



     17-18, August 13, 1970







27-   Kinsman, B., Wind Waves. Their Generation and Propogation on



     the Ocean Surface, Prentice Hall, 1965  LOC 64-10186








28.   Balech, E.r Bull. Marine Science 17:280-298, 1967
                              4-5

-------
                              Section  5
5.1  ADDRESSES OF PARTICIPANTS
NAME
                         ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
F.C. Alley
Professor of Chemical Engineering  Chemical   Engineering
                              Clemson University
                              Clemson, S.C. 29631
                                             803-656-3055
                                                            Department
William M. Dunstan
Assistant Professor of
     Oceanography
                                   Skidaway Institute of  Oceanography
                              Savannah, Georgia  31406
                                             912-352-1631
Billy L. Edge
Associate Professor of Civil       Civil    Engineering
Engineering                   Clemson University
                              Clemson, South Carolina  29631
                                             803-656-3277
                                                            Department
S.T. Kelly
Project Manager
Ocean Disposal Study
                                   Environmental Engineering  Division
                                   Interstate Electronics Corporation
                              707 E. Vermont
                              Anaheim, California  92803
                                             714-772-2811
                                                  Ext. 1562
B. Kinsman
Consultant
C.F. McFarlane
Oceanographer
Disposal Study
                                   Blair Kinsman & Associates
                              Riva, Maryland  21140 301-956-2983
                              Environmental Engineering Division Ocean
                         Interstate Electronics Corporation
                              707 E. Vermont
                              Anaheim, California  92803
                                             714-772-2811
                                                  Ext. 1551
                                 5-1

-------
William W. Schroeder
Assistant Professor of Marine University of Alabama
     Science                  Dauphin Island Sea Lab
                              Box 386
                              Dauphin Island, Alabama  36528
                                             205-861-3702

R.C. Timme
General Manager                    Environmental Engineering  Division
                              Interstate  Electronics  Corporation 707
                              E.  Vermont
                              Anaheim,  California  92803
                                             714-772-2811
                                                  Ext.  1558
                                 5-2

-------
5.2  RESUMES OF PARTICIPANTS


FORREST C. ALLEY
Professor of Chemical Engineering
Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina

     Education:
          B.S.      Auburn University 1951, Chen-deal Engineering
          Air Force 1 year graduate meteorology course,
                    New York University, 1952
          M.S.      Auburn University 1955, Chemical Engineering
          Ph.D.          University of North Carolina  1962,
                    Environmental Engineering

     Honors:
          Phi Lambda Upsilon, Chemistry
          Phi Kappa Phi, Scholarship
          Tau Beta Pi, Engineering
          Delta Omega, Public Health
          Sigma Xi, Research
          Awarded USPHS traineeship in 1959

     Positions Held:
          1952-1955  Weather Officer U.S. Air Force.   Service in Japan
          and Korea.  In  addition  ot  duty  as  operations  briefing
          officer,  also  held  administrative  position as Detachment
          Supply Officer and Detachment Commander.

          1956-1958   Process  Engineer,  Shell  Oil   Company,  Norco,
          Louisiana.    Assignments   included   process  engineering,
          technical assistance, and computer applications.

          1958-1959    Assistant   Professor,   Chemical   Engineering
          Department, Clemson University

          1959-1961  Doctoral student at University of North Carolina

          1961-1963  Assistant Professor, Clemson University

          1963-1969  Associate Professor, Clemson University

          1969 to date  Professor, Clemson University

          1973   Acting  Department  Head  for a period of four months
          during illness of Dr. Littlejohn

     Research  Experience
                                  5-3

-------
     Principal   Investigator,    "Design   of   Waste   Treatment
     Facilities  for  Recovery   and  Disposal  of Electrochemical
     Machinery Wastes",  General Electric Company, Summer 1973

     Principal Investigator,  "Removal of  Sulfur  Compounds  from
     Stack  Gases",   West  Virginia Pulp and Paper Company, 1967-
     1971

     Co-Principal  Investigator,  "Design  Parameters  for   Deep
     Stabilization  Ponds",  U.S.   Army  Medical Research Command
     1965-1966

     Principal   Investigator,     "Temperature    Mechanism    in
     Atmospheric Oxidant Process",  USPHS 1963-1965

     Principal    Investigator,   "Electrical   Waste   Treatment
     Methods", USPHS 1965

     Co-Principal   Investigator,     "Design    Parameters    for
     Stabilization  Ponds",  S.C.   Pollution Control Board, 1963-
     1965

     Co-Principal Investigator, "Non-mechanical  Pulse  Columns",
     Union Carbide Nuclear, 1959

Graduate Theses Directed

     "A  Study  of  the  Occurrence  of  Photochemical  Smog with
     Emphasis on Temperature Effects", M.S. 1965

     "The Effect of Temperature on the Rate of the  Photochemical
     Reaction  of  Pentene-1  in  Air in the Presence of Nitrogen
     Dioxide and Water Vapor",  M.S. 1965

     "A Study of  the  Use  of   Electrokenetic  Methods  for  the
     Removal   of  Suspended  Lyophobic  Particles  Dispersed  in
     Water", M.S. 1965

     "The  Effect  of  Humidity  on  the  Adsorpition  of  Methyl
     Mercaptan on a Fixed-Bed of Activiated Carbon", M.S.  1967

     "The  Design and Evaluation of an Experimental Vapor- Liquid
     Equilibrium Still", M.S. 1968

     "A Study of  the  Effect  of  Operating  Parameters  on  the
     Removal  of  Suspended  Activiated Carbon Particles in Water
     with an Electro-coagulation Unit", M.S. 1968
                            5-4

-------
          "An  Investigation of  the Degrees of Chemical  Oxygen  Demand
          Removal  obtained  from the Treatment of a Wastewater Stream
          Containing Emulsified Textile Finishing Oils", M.S.  1970

          "An   Investigation of  the  Dynamic   Parameters   of   the
          Adsorption  of   Selected  Hydrocarbons  on  a  Fixed  Bed of
          Activated Carbon using a Pulse  Chromatographic  Technique",
          PhD.  1970

          "Fluid   Bed  Adsorption  of  Low  Concentrations   of  Sulfur
          Dioxide in Air  onto Activated Carbon", PhD.  1970

          "A Study of  the  Steam  Regeneration  of  a  Fixed   Bed  of
          Activated Carbon used to Adsorb Hydrogen Sulfide", M.S.  1970

          "Mass Transfer  Coeeficients in Fluidized Beds", M.S.  1971

          "The Adsorption of Trichloroethylene onto a  Fluidized Bed  of
          Activated Carbon", M.S. 1972

          "Turbulent  Thin Film Evaporation of a Wastewater Containing
          Emulsified Textile Spin Finishing Oils", M.S.  1972

          "The Reduction   of Nitric  Oxide  on  Activated   Carbon  at
          Elevated Temperatures", PhD. 1972

12.   Industrial Consulting

     A.    Major or long term projects
          1.   General Electric Ompany,  Greenville  S.C.    Design  of
               facilities for disposal of electromachinery  wastes.

          2.   General   Electric   Company,   Hendersonville,    N.C.,
               Industrial Hygiene plant survey.

          3.   Hoechst   Fibers,   Spartanburg,   S.C.,   Design   and
               modification of  plant waste treatment system.

          4.   Dow-Badische  Company,   Anderson,   S.C.,   Principal
               Consultant on waste treatment 1969 to date.

          5.   Greenwood  Mills, Orangeburg, S.C., Principal Consultant
               on waste treatment 1969 to date.

          6.   Thermo-Kinetics   Inc.,  Greenville,   S.C.,   Principal
               Consultant  on development and application of high rate
               filter for industrial wastes 1970 to date.

          7.   Charleston Rubber  Company,  Clover,  S.C»,   Supervised
               design of  waste  treatment system for plant expansion.
                                 5-5

-------
8.    Bishop  Associates,    Greenville,    S.C.,    Design   of
     treatment system for new fiberglass plant.
                       5-6

-------
WILLIAM M. DUNSTAN
Biologist
Assistant Professor
Skidaway Institute of Oceanography

Education
     B.S.      Yale University               1956  (Engineering)
     M.S.      Florida State University 1967 (Marine Biology)
     Ph.D.          Florida state University 1969  (Biology)

Experience
     Lieutenant j.g., 1956-1960, U.S. Naval Air Intelligence
     Loan Analyst, 1960-1962, International Division, Chase Manahattan
          Bank
     Product Development Engineer, 1962-1965, Celanese Corporation  of
          America
     Instructor,   Marine  Biology,  1967,  Florida  State  University
     National  Science  Foundation,  Pre-Doctoral  Fellow,   1967-1969
     Visiting Research Oceaographer, Summer, 1969, Naval Research
          Laboratory
     Postdoctoral  Investigator,  1969-1970,  Woods Hole Oceanographic
          Institution
     Assistant  Scientist,   1970-1972,   Woods   Hole   Oceanographic
          Institution   and   Visiting  Professor,  Bridgewater  State
          University  (Biolgoical Oceanography,  1969-1971)
     Assistant Professor,  1972  to  present,  Skidaway  Institute  of
          Oceanography

     Member, American Society of Limnology and Oceanography
     Member, American Phycological Society
     Member, Marine Biological Association of the U.K.
     Consultant, Maine Central Power Company
     Consultant, Boston Edison Company
     Consultant, Narrangansett Electric Company
Publications
     Dunstan,  W.M.  and  D. W. Menzel, Continuous Cultures of Natural
     Populations of Marine Phytoplanjcton  in  Dilute,  Treated  Sewage
     Effluent  Limnology Oceanography, 916 (4):623-632, 1971

     Ryther,  John H. and William M. Dunstan, Nitrogen„ Phosphorus and
     Eutrophication in the Coastal Marine Environment  Science,   1008-
     1013,  1971

     Ryther,  J.  H.,  W. M. Dunstan, D. R. Tenore and J. E. Huguenin,
     Controlled Eutrophication Increasing Food Production from the Sea
     by. Recycling Human Wastes  Bioscience, 22 (3) : 141-152,~
                                  5-7

-------
Dunstan, W.M. and  K.R.  Tenore,  Intensive  Outdoor  Culture  of
Marine   Phytoplankton  Enriched  with  Treated  Sewage  Effluent
Aquaculture, 1:181-192, 1972

Tenore, K.R. and W.M. Dunstan,  Growth  Comparisons  of  Oysters^
Mussels  and  Scallops  Cultivated on Algae Grown with Artificial
Medium and Treated Sewage Effluent  Chesapeake Science,  1U(1):64~
66, 1973

Menzel,  D.W.  and  W.M.  Dunstan,  Growth  Measurements  by.  the
Analysis   of   Carbon    Handbook   of   Phycological   Methods,
Phycological Society of America, pp. 313-320, 1973

Dunstan, W.M., A Comparison of the Photosynthesis-Light  Intensity
Relationship  in  Phylogenetically  Different  Marine  Mjcroalgae
Journal  of  Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 13:179-185,
1973

Tenore,  K.R.  and  W.M.  Dunstan,  Comparison  of  Feeding   and
Biodeposition  of  Three Bivalves at Different Food Levels Marine
Biology, 21 (3):190-195, 1973

Tenore, K.R. and W.M. Dunstan, Comparison of Rates of Feeding and
Biodeposition of the American Oyster, Crassostrea  Virginica  Fed
on  Different  Species  of Phytoplankton  Journal of Experimental
Marine Biology and Ecology, 12:19-26, 1973
                            5-8

-------
BILLY L. EDGE
Associate Progessor of Civil Engineering
Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina

Education
     B.S.      Virginia Polytechnic Institute     Civil    Engineering
     M.S.      Virginia Polytechnic Institute     Civil    Engineering
     Ph.D.          Georgia Institute of Technology    Civil
     Engineering

Experience

     May 1972  -  date:   Associate  Professor  of  Civil  Engineering
     Clemson University

     August 1970 - May 1972:  Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering
     Clemson University

     January 1970 - August 1970:  Surveying Instructor, McCombs County
     Community College, Warren, Michigan

     August  1968  - August 1970:  Research Physical Scientist, Deputy
     District Engineer, and Captain, U.S.  Army  Corps  of  Engineers,
     Great Lakes Research Center, Detroit, Michigan

     March  1967  -  June 1967:  Teaching Fellow, Georgia Institute of
     Technology

     March  1965  -  September  1965:   Research  Assistant,  Virginia
     Polytechnic Institute
     Edge,  B.,  and  P.G.  Mayer,  Discussion of "Spectra Analysis of
     Ocean Wave Forces on Piling" by Leon Entry Borgman, Journal of the
     Waterways and Harbors Division, ASCE, February 1968

     Edge, B.L., and P.C. Liu, Comparing Spectra Computed by Blackman-
     Tukey and FFT^, Proceedings of ASCE-EMD Specialty  Conference  on
     Probabilistic   Concepts   and  Methods  of  Engineering,  Purdue
     University, November 1969

     Edge, B.,., and P.G. Mayer, A Stochastic Model for  the  Response
     °f  Permanent  Offshore Structures Sub-ject to Soil Restraints and
     Wave"Forces, Water  Resources  Center  Report  WRC-0269,  Georgia
     Institute of Technology, Atlanta, April 1969
                                 5-9

-------
Edge,  B.L.f  An Analysis of a Deep-Water Structure for the Great
Lakes, Proceedings Thirteenth  Conference  of  the  International
Association for Great Lakes Research, 1970

Edge,  B.L.,  P.G.  Mayer, and G.A. Pierce, An Analysis Technique
for Composite Structures Sub-ject to  Dynamic  Loads,  Journal  of
Applied Mechanics, ASME, March 1971

Edge,  B.L.,  and  B.C. Dysart, III, A Hydrodynamic Model for the
Barge Disposal of Dredge Material at Sea presented  to  the  ASCE
National Water Resources Meeting, Atlanta, January 1972

Edge,  B.L., and B.C. Dysart, III, Modeling Techniques for Siting
Large  Thermal   Power   Plants   on   Industrialized   Estuaries
Proceedings  of  International Symposium on Mathematical Modeling
Techniques in Water Resources Systems, Ottawa, Ontario, 1972

Edge, B.L., Ocean Engineering and Coastal Pollution Presented  to
the ASCE National Water Resources Meeting, Atlanta, January 1972

Edge,  B.L.,  Hydrodynamic  Analysis  of Sludge Dumped in Coastal
Waters   Proceedings  Thirteenth  International   Conference   on
Coastal Engineering, Vancouver, July 1972

Edge,  B.L., Mathematical Simulation of Spoiling Presented at the
Environmental  Modification  by   Dredge   Activities   Workshop,
Morehead City, North Carolina, August 1972

Edge, B.L., and J.O. Conn, Hybrid computer Simulation of a Moored
BuoyJ5   Proceedings of Ocean ^72 IEEE International Conference on
Engineering in the  Ocean  Environment,  Newport,  Rhode  IslandT
September  1972

Edge,  B.L., and B.C. Dysart, III, Transport Mechanisms Governing
Sludges and Other Materials Barged to Sea A Civil Engineering and
Environmental Systems  Engineering  Report,  Clemson  University,
September  1972

Edge,  B.L.,  Editor,  Coastal  Zone Pollution Management Clemson
University, January  1973

Edge, B.L., Coastal Pollution Management:^  A Summary, Chapter  15
in Coastal Zone Pollution Management, Clemson University, January
1973

Dysart,  B.C. Ill, and B.L. Edge, Systems Approach in Power Plant
Siting:  Engineering  Economic  Aspects  Presented  to  the  ASCE
National Water Resources Meeting, Washington, D.C., January 1973
                            5-10

-------
McChesney,  S.W. ,  and  B.L. Edge, The Intracoastal Waterway from
Winyah  Bay  to  Little  River—Hydrodynamics  of  Water  Quality
Proceedings  of  the Annual Meeting of the South Carolina Academy
of Science, Columbia, March 1973

McCabe, W.J., J.E. McCoy,  and  B.L.  Edge,  A  New  Approach  to
Estuarine  Water  Quality  Modeling,  Proceedings  of  the Annual
Meeting of the South Carolina Academy of Science^ Columbia, 19^3^

Edge, B.L., F.E. Weisgerber and  J.F.  O'Brien,  Hybrid  Computer
Simulation  of  Buoy Dynamics and Stream Transport Proceedings of
1973  Southwestern  Institute  of  Electrical   and   Electronics
Engineers Conference, Houston, April 1973

Edge,  B.L.,  Environmentally  Compatible  Techniques for Dumping
Dredge SjDojL^l at Sea  Proceedings of  World  Dredging  Conference,
WODCONV, Hamburg, Germany June 1973

Edge,  B.L.  and  S.W.  McChesney, Water Quality Management Model
Presented to the 54th Annual Meeting of the American  Geophysical
Union, Washington, D.C , June 1973

Edge,  B.L.  and  J.E. McCoy, Environmental Quality Prediction in
Fjords  Proceedings of Ocean '73 IEEE International Conference on
Engineering in the Ocean Environment, Seattle, September 1973

Edge, B.L., Finite Element Modeling for Water Quality  Management
presented  at  the  Oregon  State  University  Ocean  Engineering
Seminar Series, September 1973

Callcott, F.D. and B.L. Edge, Water Quality  Model^  Intracoastal
Wa t erway-Waccamaw  River   Report  from  Harwood Beebe Company to
South Carolina Department of Health  and  Environmental  Control,
February 1974

Edge,  B.L.,  Mathematical  Modeling for Water Quality in Coastal
Areas^  Presented at the Texas A&M University,  Ocean  Engineering
Seminar Series, March 1974

Edge,  B.L.,  Role  of  Mechanics  in  Environmental  Engineering
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the  Southweatern  Sectionof
the American Society of Engineering Educators, April 1974
                           5-11

-------
SAMUEL T. KELLY
Oceanographic Engineer
Interstate Electronics Corporation
Anaheim, California

Education
     iTs? California State Polytechnic       Electronic    Engineering
               College

     M.A. California State University        Physical Science
               Long Beach

Experience
     1973 - present:  Project Manager, Ocean Disposal Program

     1972 - 1973:  Performed  field  studies  on  coastal  zone  water
     quality monitoring in southeastern United States

     1961   -   1972:    Project   Engineer   (Interstate  Electronics
     Corporation)  for a  wide  range  of  scientific  and  engineering
     projects

     Author  of  over forty publications in the field of environmental
     science and instrumentation.
                                5-12

-------
WILLIAM W. SCHROEDER
Assistant Professor Marine science
University of Alabama

Education
     Ph.D.          Texas A&M University          Oceanography

Publications
1974:     Hydrographic  and   Current   Structure   on   the   Western
          Continental  shelf  of  the  Northeastern  Gulf  of  Mexico.
          (w/G.F.  Crozier)  in:    Proceeding  of  Marine  Environmental
          Implications  of  Offshore Drilling—Eastern Gulf of Mexico:
          1974,  State  University  System  of  Florida  Institute  of
          Oceanography Publ. 74-4

In press: The Oceanic Waters of the Gulf of Mexico and Yucantan Strait
          during July, 1969, (w/L. Berver,  Jr.  and  W.  D.  Norolin,
          Jr.), Bull, of Marine Science, Univ.  of Miami.
                                5-13

-------
BLAIR KINSMAN
Riva, Maryland 21140

Education
     The Principia College, Elsah, Illinois
     S.B. University of Chicago         Mathematics
     Universidad Nacional de Mexico, Escuela de Verano
     M.S. The Johns Hopkins University  Oceanography
     Ph.D.     The Johns Hopkins University  Oceanography

Experience
     1953-1958:     Instructor, Department of Oceanography, The  Johns
     Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

     1960-1961:     Research Scientist, Chesapeake Bay  Institue,  The
     Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

     1961-1966:     Assistant Professor of Oceanography, Department of
     Oceanography, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

     1966-1970:     Associate Professor of Oceanography, Department of
     Earth and  Planetary  sciences,  The  Johns  Hopkins  University,
     Baltimore, Maryland

     1970-1971:     Professor  of  Oceanography,  College  of   Marine
     Studies, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware

     1972-1973:     Coordinator,  Rhode  River   Program,   Chesapeake
     Research  Consortium,  Chesapeake  Bay  Center  for Environmental
     Studies-Smithsonian Institution, Edgewater, Maryland

     1973 to date:  Blair Kinsman  &  Associates,  Consultants,  Riva,
     Maryland

Publications
     Kinsman, B., Surface Waves at Short Fetches and Low Wind Speeds—
     A Field Study, Volumes \± 2L and 3 Chesapeake Bay  Institute Tech.
     Rep. XIX, Ref. 60-1, 592 pp.

     Kinsman,  B.,  River Tides in McGraw-Hill  Encyclopedia of  Science
     and Technology, McGraw-Hill Book Company,  New York. p. 586

     Kinsman, B., Tidal Bore in McGraw-Hill  Encyclopedia  of   Science
     and Technology, McGraw-Hill Book Company,  New York. p. 632

     Kinsman,  B.,  Some Evidence on the Effect of Nonlinearity on the
     Position of the Equilibrium Range in Wind  Wave  Spectra   Journal
     Geophsical Research 66(8)2411-2415
                                 5-14

-------
Kinsman,  B. „ W_iad Waye_s—-Their Generation and Propagation  oil tne
Ocean Surface Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New  Jersey.  xiii  *
676 pp.

Kinsman, B. „ Notes on Tides^ Seiches^ and Long  Waves   The   Jorbis
Hopkins  University,  Department  of Oceanography,  Lecture  No--...-;i,
258 pp.
Kinsman,  B.,  Notes  on  Lectures  on   Estuarine   Oceanography
Delivered  by  D^W.  Pritchard  3_ October to  Vf± December  1960  The
Johns Hopkins University,  Department  of  Oceanography,   Lecture
Notes. 154 pp.

Kinsman, B. , On Scholarship The Johns Hopkins Magazine  18(1)2-6.

Kinsman,  B., An Exploration of the Origin and Persistence of  the
S^auJojd: Wind Force Scale Chesapeake Bay Institute Tech.  Rep.  39,
Ref. 69-7T 55pp.

Kinsman, B., On Field Experiments, with a Sketch of a Plan for  a
Wind  Wave  Generation  Field  Experiment  to  be Carried Out  Off
Aruba, N.A.   Aboard  the  R/V  RIDGELY  WARFIELD  Chesapeake   Bay
Institute Tech. Rep. 42, Ref. 68-1o7 66 pp.

Kinsman, B. , Historical Notes on the Original Beaufort  Scale   The
Marine Observer, 39(225)116-124.

Kinsman,  B., Who Put the Wind Speeds in Admiral Beaufort1 s Force
Scale?  Oceans Magazine 2(2)18-25.

Kinsman, B. , Ocean Surface  Conditions   (ocean  truth)  in Space
Geodesy  Altimetry  Verification  Experiment Design Study (VEDS),
Final Report. SR 70-4108.  Raytheon Company, Equipment  Division,
Sudbury, Massachusetts.  43pp.

Kinsman,  B., Wind Waves—Their Generation and Propagation on  the
Ocean Surface  Japanese Translation.  2 volumes.  Tokyo,  Japan.

Kinsman, B., Estuarine Hydrodynamics  A Series  of  Ten  Lectures
Given  at  the  Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico,  7 August
1972 through 18 August 1972.  212 pp.
                            5-15

-------
CHARLES F. McFARLANE
Oceanographer
Interstate Electronics Corporation
Anaheim, California

Education
     Chemistry major     Yuba College, California

Experience
     1973 to date:  Field  Engineer-  Ocean   Waste   Disposal   Study
     Interstate Electronics Corporation

     1971-1973:     Field  Engineer  -  Coastal  Zone  Water   Quality
     Monitoring Investigation Interstate Electronics Corporation

     1971:     Marine Technician - Scripps Institute of  Oceanography,
     Geosecs Program

     1966-1971:     Marine Technician - Field Studies, Data  Analysis,
     Dillingham Corporation and Bendix Corporation

     1963-1966:     Marine Technician - Field Studies, Data  Analysis,
     U. S. Navy - China Lake MOTS

Memberships
     American Chemical Society
     Marine Technology Society

Publications
     Ocean   Waste   Disposal   Practices  in  Metropolitan  Areas  of
     California,  1974

     Coastal Zone  Water  Quality  Monitoring  in  Los  Angeles/Orange
     Counties, 1973

     Coastal  Zone  Water  Quality Monitoring in the San Francisco Bay
     Area, 1972
                                5-16

-------