United States Office of EPA 520/1 -88-011
Environmental Protection Radiation Programs September 1988
Agency Washington, DC 20460
Radiation
oEPA Development of Benthic
Biological Monitoring Criteria
for Disposal of Low-Level
Radioactive Waste in the
Abyssal Deep Sea
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF BENTHIC BIOLOGICAL MONITORING CRITERIA FOR
DISPOSAL OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE IN THE ABYSSAL DEEP SEA
by Craig R. Smith, Teresa M.C. Present, and
Peter A. Jumars
School of Oceanography WB-10
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
Final report for EPA Contract No. 68-02-4303
Robert Dyer, Marilyn Varela
Project Officers
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. SUMMARY OF U.S. REGULATIONS GOVERNING OCEAN DISPOSAL OF
LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES 3
Summary of Regulations from a Benthic Biological
Perspective 3
Discussion 5
III. SAMPLING AND MONITORING TECHNIQUES FOR ABYSSAL BENTHOS ... 8
Description of Specific Methods 8
Recommended Methods for Assessment of Ecological Parameters. 9
IV. MONITORING OF PAST LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL
IN SHALLOW MARINE ENVIRONMENTS 17
Review 17
Discussion - Conceptual Framework Generallzable to the
Deep Sea 20
Conclusions 22
V. EFFECTS OF PREVIOUS DISPOSAL OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE
WASTES IN THE DEEP SEA 24
Radionuclide Contamination 24
Radionuclide Transfer Pathways 25
Nonradiological Effects 26
Conclusions 29
VI. SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS FOR RADIONUCLIDE ASSAYS 30
VII. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVE DEEP-SEA ORGANISMS 32
General Environmental Monitoring - Waste Nucllde Levels. . . 33
Local Environmental Monitoring - Waste Cannister Vicinity. . 49
VIII. BENTHIC BIOLOGICAL MONI10RING RECOMMENDATIONS 53
Baseline Monitoring 53
Trend-Assessment Monitoring 63
General Comments 64
REFERENCES 65
APPENDIX A A-l
APPENDIX B B-l
111
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Methods For Collection Of Benthic
Ecological Data At Abyssal Depths
USNEL Box Corer
Anchor Dredge
Epibenthic Sled
Bottom Trawls
Bottom Towed Camera Sled
Near-Bottom Towed Camera
Pogo Camera
Remote Photographic Vehicles
Free-Vehicle Baited Camera
Free-Vehicle Baited Traps and Set Lines
Free-Vehicle Grab Respirometry
Baited-trap Respirometry
Immunoassay of Gut Contents
Research Submersible
Remotely Operated Vehicles
87
89
90
91
93
95
96
98
100
102
103
105
106
107
108
Table 2 The Amount Of Tissue Required To Measure
Expected Background Levels Of Radionuclides
In Major Benthic Taxa From the North Atlantic
And North Pacific Oceans
109
Table 3 The Probability Of Detecting A 50% Change
In Total Macrofaunal Abundance, Using The
T-Test
110
IV
-------
Section I. INTRODUCTION
In developing recommendations for monitoring low-level radioactive
waste dumpsltes in the abyss, we attempted a synthesis of Information
from three overlapping topical areas. First, U.S. regulations governing
the dumping and monitoring of wastes in the ocean were Interpreted in a
deep-sea context. This Involved outlining those monitoring
"requirements" that pertain to abyssal systems. Second, significant
attention was given to experiences obtained from past dumping of
low-level radioactive wastes in marine environments, both shallow-water
and deep-sea. We expected that an analysis of the environmental effects
of previous dumping would yield insights into the likely consequences of
future disposal activities, and thus aid in the selection of important
environmental parameters to be monitored. In addition, we felt that a
consideration of past conceptual approaches to monitoring of radwaste
disposal areas would .aid the development of an optimal (or at least,
effective) strategy for monitoring abyssal dumpsites. Finally, we
attempted to apply the monitoring "requirements" and conceptual
approaches selected above to the abyssal seafloor, based on present
understandings of the deep-sea ecosystem. This involved a review of the
current deep-sea biological data base, followed by synthesis of
appropriate baseline and trend-assessment monitoring programs.
The report is organized as follows. Section II reviews U.S.
regulations governing the monitoring of ocean dumpsites; included is an
outline of those requirements that appear to specifically apply to
abyssal benthos, together with a discussion of the feasibility of meeting
these requirements given current technology. We emphasize that this
review 1s written by biological oceanographers rather than lawyers, so it
presents a scientific, as opposed to legal, interpretation of the
regulations.
Section III provides a detailed discussion of the techniques used to
monitor and sample abyssal benthos. Although a discussion of methods may
seem premature near the beginning of the report, we felt it important
that readers become aware of the technical difficulties Involved in the
study of deep-sea benthos. Such an awareness will allow them to follow
more clearly the evolution of our thoughts in later portions of the
report. Initially, the reader may wish to skim this section and then use
Table 1 as a reference while reading later sections.
In Sections IV and V, we review monitoring approaches and results
from past disposal programs in near-shore and deep-sea environments. We
also make some predictions concerning the ecological effects of waste
disposal on abyssal benthos. Many of our conclusions concerning
representative organisms and important monitoring parameters are derived
from these sections.
-------
Section VI Is a brief discussion of the sampling requirements for
analyzing background levels of selected radionuclides in abyssal
organisms. This section summarizes the data compiled in Appendix 1.
In Section VII, we combine conclusions from several earlier sections
to decide which types of organisms and benthic ecological parameters are
of importance in monitoring low-level radwaste disposal sites in the
abyss. We decided that both general and local environmental monitoring
at dumpsites is required. General environmental monitoring focuses on
organisms "representative" of radionuclide transport pathways, and local
monitoring deals with radiotoxicity and seafloor disturbance, as well as
transport considerations. Subsequently, we consider the goals of
"general" and "local" monitoring in the context of abyssal benthic
ecology, placing special emphasis on the ecology of those species that
are likely to meet radioanalytical requirements.
Finally, in Section VIII, we synthesize conclusions from the seven
previous sections, developing recommendations for both baseline and
trend-assessment monitoring of benthos in abyssal dumpsites. In making
these recommendations, we have endeavored to be as specific as possible,
outlining desired sampling techniques and intensities, and roughly
estimating time and cost requirements. Nonetheless, the paucity of
deep-sea data often caused difficulties in making specific monitoring
recommendations. This is especially true for trend-assessment programs,
whose design will ultimately depend on the acquisition of adequate
baseline data. Quite predictably then, our recommendations concerning
monitoring criteria for abyssal dumpsites are limited by a lack of
knowledge of the structure and function of deep-sea ecosystems.
-------
Section II. SUMMARY OF U.S. REGULATIONS GOVERNING OCEAN DISPOSAL OF
LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES
SUMMARY OF REGULATIONS FROM A BENTHIC BIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
Laws and regulations reviewed Include the following:
1. Section 102 of Public Law 93-532, "The Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended";
2. Section 228.13 of the Ocean Dumping Final Revision of
Regulations and Criteria, "Guidelines for Ocean Disposal Site Baseline
and Trend Assessment Surveys under Section 102 of the Act"; and
3. Public Law 97-424, the "Surface Transportation Assistance Act of
1982," Section 424.
At present (1985), ocean disposal of low-level radioactive wastes
(LLRW) from the United States is only permitted for research on (a) new
disposal technology or (b) effects of disposal on environmental quality.
In evaluating permit applications, the Environmental Protection Agency
must consider disposal effects on:
Human health, welfare, and resources;
Fisheries and wildlife; and
Marine ecosystems.
Prior to disposal, an applicant must, according to PL 97-424:
(1) conduct baseline surveys at the disposal site and In the surrounding
environment (424(h)(4)), and (2) prepare a "Radioactive Material Disposal
Impact Assessment" for the disposal site (424(1)(1)), which apparently 1s
to be based largely on results from the baseline survey. This assessment
must, among other things, list the radionuclides to be disposed of
(424(1)(1)A) and analyze the potential impact of their disposal on human
health and welfare, marine life, and the environment (424(1)(1)B).
Scenarios to be considered in the assessment Include the total release of
radionuclides from waste containers Immediately after they reach the
seafloor (424(1)(1)D). Finally, the assessment must Include a
comprehensive monitoring plan to determine the actual "full effect of the
disposal on the marine environment, living resources, or human health."
This monitoring plan is to be reviewed, and may be modified, by the
Environmental Protection Agency (424(i)(l)J).
We interpret the provisions of PL 97-424 to mean that ecosystem effects
requiring particular consideration include: the concentration and
transfer of radionuclides through biological, physical, and chemical
processes; changes in biotic diversity, productivity, and stability; and
-------
changes in the "dynamics" (really "kinematics") of blotlc populations and
communities. Both the persistence of these effects and the quantitative
relationships between the magnitude of effects and disposal
volumes/concentrations must also be considered.
Baseline and Trend Assessment Monitoring Requirements
General Purpose
Baseline and trend-assessment surveys, according to Section 228.13
of the 1977 EPA regulations, are supposed to provide a "synoptic and
representative picture of existing conditions" at the disposal site.
Each survey should be an integral part of a continuing time series to
assess changes at the disposal site.
General Survey Requirements
Surveys must:
1. Consider "all major features of the disposal site";
2. Use state-of-the-art techniques reproducible in accuracy and
precision;
3. Collect samples to address seasonal effects on pollutant impact
(i.e., at the least, sample during two opposing seasons, or
sample during the season when effects are likely to be most
severe);
4. Compare conditions at the disposal site with > one contiguous
control area (if there are persistent currents at the site,
there must be control areas both upcurrent and downcurrent from
it); and
5. Locate sampling stations to provide maximum coverage of the
disposal site and control areas.
Specific Requirements
The following are specific requirements for benthic biological
monitoring indicated in the reviewed U.S. regulations.
Baseline surveys. For benthic biota covered by Section
228.13(e)(4). the survey must do the following:
1. Quantitatively evaluate (presumably in number of individuals and
biomass) microbenthos, meiobenthos, macroinfauna and epifauna,
and megafauna. Dominant species must be identified and organism
diversity assessed.
-------
2. Appraise the sensitivity of Indigenous species to the proposed
waste (I.e., radioactivity) and Identify sensitive or Indicator
species.
3. Analyze tissue samples for disposal radlonucHdes from the
following organisms:
A predominant species of demersal fish;
The dominant macrolnfaunal species; and
The dominant epifaunal species.
If possible, organisms selected should be economically important
Sampling, according to Section 228.13(e)(l)(i), may consist of the
following, with the minimum replication per station Indicated:
Core samples 3 per station
Grab samples 5 per station
Dredge samples 3 per station
Trawls 20 min bottom time
Bottom photography or television.
At shelf depths, a minimum of 15 sampling stations in the disposal site
are required; an unspecified smaller number are allowed in the deep sea.
In addition, one sampling station is required (a) on either side of any
environmental discontinuity, and (b) on any major feature (e.g., a
submarine canyon) in the study area.
Trend-assessment surveys. Specific requirements for
trend-assessment surveys are the same as those for baseline surveys, with
the following addition. Samples of "fish" and "benthic animals" (as well
as sediment and water samples) must be taken adjacent to waste containers
for analysis of major disposal radionuclides (P.L.97-424).
DISCUSSION
According to our Interpretation of U.S. regulations, Section
228.13(e)(4), baseline monitoring of a potential radioactive waste
disposal site has several major benthic biological goals:
1. It should provide basic quantitative information (if not already
available) concerning the structure (species composition,
diversity) and kinematics (productivity, population and
community "dynamics," stability) of the benthic community and
their normal variation over space and time.
-------
2. It should yield a quantitative assessment of organisms
associated with (potential) human resources, and provide
insights into the dynamics of organism-resource relationships.
3. In theory, it should evaluate the biological processes that may
concentrate and transport the radionuclides to be disposed of.
All this information is then to be used (a) to predict the
effects of radionuclide disposal on marine ecosystems and human
welfare and resources, and (b) as a starting point in a time
series of studies to determine changes in the ecosystem
resulting from disposal activities.
Trend-assessment monitoring goals are to measure the actual impact
of the disposal program on marine ecosystem(s) and on human welfare and
resources. In theory, these general monitoring goals, and their
associated specific requirements, are entirely applicable to abyssal
benthic environments. In practice, many of these objectives are not
realizable over the short term (time scale of years); they can be
addressed only through a major extended research effort such as that of
the Subseabed Disposal Program (Anderson et al., 1983). The following
are the monitoring requirements that likely can be met on a time scale of
> several (2-3) years, given present knowledge and technology.
1. Quantitative evaluation of the standing crop and diversity, and
identification of dominant species for megabenthos,
macrobenthos, and meiobenthos (but probably not the
microbenthos). Spatial and temporal variations in these
parameters can also be determined within limits.
2. Determination of background tissue levels (or at least, upper
limits) of disposal radionuclides in predominant species of
demersal fish and megabenthic epifauna (but probably not in
dominant macroinfaunal species).
3. Determination of levels of disposed radionuclides in fish and
benthos adjacent to waste containers, which is feasible but
technologically challenging due to limited availability of
abyssal-depth submersibles and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs).
A number of monitoring goals are not fully achievable in the short
term (1-3 yrs) and only limited (or minor) progress can be expected at
current levels of knowledge and technology. These goals include:
1. Direct assessment of productivity rates (population or
ecosystem).
2. Precise measurement of the rates of bioaccumulation and transfer
of radionuclides in the deep sea.
-------
3. Determination of population and community dynamics for any
significant fraction of the benthic community.
4. Appraisal of the radiosensitivity of deep-sea species.
5. Assessment of ecosystem stability in terms of resistance to, or
recovery rate from, specific perturbations.
6. Determination of the indirect effects of abyssal organisms on
the concentration or dispersion of radionuclides (e.g., through
vertical and horizontal sediment mixing, injection of
nuclide-bearing sediment into the benthic boundary layer, etc.).
Many of these topics are in the initial stages of investigation in a
variety of basic and applied research programs; the current limited level
of knowledge in these areas is discussed in several recent review
volumes, including Ernst and Morin .(1982), Rowe (1983), and Park et al.
(1983c). For facilitation of the achievement of these monitoring goals
within a reasonable time frame, it would probably be advisable for the
EPA to sponsor research on those topics in abyssal areas likely to serve
as future disposal sites.
Finally, it is important to note that the specific monitoring
requirements detailed in "Guidelines for Ocean Disposal Site Baseline or
Trend Assessment Surveys" are relatively flexible. A monitoring program
could easily be designed to meet these requirements but realize few of
the monitoring goals outlined in the various regulations. Thus, it is
strongly recommended that any proposed monitoring program intended to
meet these goals be carefully reviewed by a panel of scientists expert in
deep-sea biology (as well as in other oceanographic disciplines) to be
certain that the appropriate goals are adequately addressed.
-------
Section III. SAMPLING AND MONITORING TECHNIQUES FOR ABYSSAL BENTHOS
Collection of ecological data from abyssal benthos is not an easy
undertaking. Great water depth, high hydrostatic pressure, and distance
from shore make any sampling effort logistically challenging and
expensive. Further sampling problems arise from the scarcity and
delicate nature of abyssal organisms. These factors also make
experimental manipulations in the abyss extraordinarily difficult or
impossible, given existing technology. For these and other reasons, the
structure and function of abyssal ecosystems remain poorly understood.
The following is a review of existing methods used to collect and,
in some cases, to analyze ecologically relevant data from abyssal benthic
communities. First, a general description of each method, in terms of
nature of data, costs, logistical requirements, etc., is provided in
tabular form (Table 1). We then discuss the most desirable
sampling/monitoring methods, with emphasis on data quality and operating
costs, for a variety of potentially important ecological parameters.
In all cases, we have concentrated on existing technology; I.e.,
sampling/monitoring approaches that have been used with some measure of
success in the past. Although significant technological breakthroughs
may be expected in certain areas in the next 5-10 yrs (e.g., in acoustic
monitoring of near-bottom organisms and in development of remote
manipulatory capabilities), the costs and efficiencies of such methods
cannot be predicted. We are thus unable to include them in a discussion
of recommended monitoring approaches.
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC METHODS
Table 1 provides a general description of methods currently 1n use
for studying deep-sea benthos. Each method has been characterized as
follows:
Faunal types assessed;
General nature of data;
Spatial scale of single sample/datum;
Measurability of intersample scale;
Cost of apparatus;
Operating costs;
Support requirements;
Difficulty/problems of data reduction;
Ecological parameters addressable;
Amenability of data to various analytical techniques; and
References.
For an exhaustive discussion of methods for the study of marine
benthos, both deep-sea and shallow-water, see Holme and Mclntyre (1984).
-------
RECOMMENDED METHODS FOR ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL PARAMETERS
General Habitat Quality
By far the best Impressions of general habitat quality (e.g.,
sediment type, decimeter-scale bottom topography, dynamism of the flow
environment, potential determinants and spatial scales of community
structure) are obtainable from data collected via submerslbles. A
submersible, such as ALVIN, allows real-time observation of structures
(and processes) over broad, continuous space and time Intervals
(centimeters to kilometers, seconds to weeks, e.g., Grassle et al.,
1975; Cohen and Pawson, 1977; Cohen, 1977; Smith and Hamilton, 1983).
Oriented samples (e.g., sediment cores and survey photographs) can also
be collected, allowing efficient delineation of habitat gradients and
discontinuities (e.g., Hessler and Smlthey, 1984). Unfortunately, the
extremely limited availability of research submerslbles that can
penetrate 4000-m depths may hinder use of this approach for assessment of
abyssal habitat quality or other ecological parameters.
The combined use of remote survey photography and sediment core
sampling 1s probably the most data- and cost-efficient means of assessing
general habitat quality for abyssal benthos. Survey photographs can be
used to analyze such aspects as bed forms, megafaunal abundance, and
sizes and densities of bloturbatlon structures. Core samples allow
assessment of sediment type, redox conditions within the sediment column,
and sediment-organic carbon content. Bottom-towed camera sleds are the
best means of obtaining remote survey photographic data because
interphoto distances are readily quantified, and apparatus and operating
costs are competitive with other photographic approaches. Reasonable
photographic alternatives include pogo cameras (data not as quantitative)
or remote photographic vehicles such as the EPAULARD (operating costs
much higher) or REMOTS (Rhoads and Germano, 1982). Core sampling for
habitat quality assessment can be carried out with a variety of sampling
devices (Holme and Mclntyre, 1984), but the USNEL box corer (Hessler and
Jumars, 1974) yields by far the best biologically relevant quantitative
data (see below).
Characterization of Community Structure
Community-structure parameters include (1) population densities,
(2) size-frequency distributions, (3) dispersion patterns, (4) species
biomasses, and (5) species diversity (species richness and evenness).
Given faunal size classes and biotopes (e.g., soft-bottom macrobenthos),
data to assess these parameters are typically collected by a single
method or a set of methods. Recommended sampling approaches are
discussed below by bottom type, and faunal type and size.
-------
Soft-Bottom Epifauna
(A) Megabenthos. Virtually all quantitative analyses of megafaunal
community structure in the deep sea have used a two-fold approach,
combining data from bottom survey photographs and bottom trawls or sleds
(e.g., Grassle et al., 1975; Haedrich and Rowe, 1977; Rice et al., 1982;
Smith and Hamilton, 1983; Ohta, 1983). In these studies, the "megafauna"
has been operationally defined as those organisms large enough to be
recognized in photographs (Grassle et al., 1975) and/or collected in
trawls (i.e., greater than 3 cm in largest dimension (Rowe, 1983)).
Survey photography has been required because deep-sea megabenthos are
typically so broadly dispersed that quantitative data covering scales of
hundreds of meters are needed; more qualitative trawl data have then been
used to confirm species identifications and to establish size-frequency
distributions and size-weight relationships (e.g., Smith, 1983b). For the
study of abyssal community structure, a combination of survey photography
and bottom trawling is recommended. As a survey photographic tool, the
bottom-towed camera sled is the most desirable because of availability,
quality of data, and competitive cost (submersibles are limited in
availability and expensive, pogo cameras provide poorer data, and remote
photographic vehicles are much more expensive to operate). For
collecting organisms for identification, trawls (Holme and Mclntyre,
1984) or epibenthic sleds (e.g., Rice et al., 1982) are acceptable. At
high megafaunal densities, the epibenthic sled may be more desirable
because it causes less damage to organisms; at the low abundances
characteristic of abyssal communities, trawls have the advantage because
of a greater sampling area. In some abyssal, soft-bottom areas where
manganese nodule cover is high, either trawling or sledding may be
problematic due to nodule overloading of the sampling apparatus; in these
areas, nearly total reliance on photography will limit characterization
of megafaunal community structure.
A portion of the megabenthos in all deep-sea areas is composed of
scavengers; i.e., organisms that feed on carrion parcels on the seafloor
(Isaacs and Schwartzlose, 1975). The background abundance of some of
these necrophages can be addressed through survey photography (Smith,
1985a), although many of these species are highly mobile and may avoid
photographic vehicles (Hessler, 1974). For the mobile scavenging fauna,
it is recommended that free-vehicle baited traps (e.g., Ingram and
Hessler, 1983) and cameras (Smith, 1985a) be used to obtain information
on species composition and size-frequency distributions. Mark and
recapture methodology potentially could be used to assess scavenger
population densities and dispersal abilities if stained bait is deployed
in combination with baited traps (Smith and Present, 1983).
(B) Mobile macrobenthos. The mobile, epibenthic macrofauna
(typically, greater than 300 urn, but too small to be recognized in
photographs; Rowe, 1983) are a difficult element to characterize because
10
-------
these animals can avoid quantitative macrofaunal sampling apparatus,
e.g., the box corer, yet cannot be detected photographically (C. R.
Smith, personal observations in the Santa Catalina Basin). For most
members of this fauna, only crude community structure data are obtainable
through use of epibenthic sleds (e.g., Rice et al., 1982). The
scavenging portion of this fauna; e.g., lysianassid amphipods, can also
be assessed through use of baited traps (Ingram and Messier, 1983).
Although both approaches are biased to an unknown degree (e.g., by loss
through meshes and variable avoidance/attraction rates), they may yield a
great deal of useful community-structure data (e.g., Hessler and Sanders,
1967; Ingram and Hessler, 1983).
(C) Sessile macrobenthos. In all abyssal, soft-bottom environments
except the pools of sandy sediment occurring on seamounts (L. Levin,
personal communication), the USNEL box corer, with the new modifications
described by Thistle (1983a) (available from Ocean Instruments, San
Diego, CA), is by far the best apparatus for quantitative sampling of
sessile macrobenthos(epifaunal or infaunal). It collects a large
(0.25 m^), relatively undisturbed core of sediment, typically 40-60 cm
in depth (Hessler and Jumars, 1974). No other grab or core sampler can
approach the box corer for sampling quality or efficiency, so it has
become the "industry standard" in analyses of deep-sea macrobenthos. Box
core samples can be subdivided in situ allowing analysis of macrobenthic
(as well as meiobenthic and microbenthic) distributions on scales of 1 to
250 cm from a single sample (Jumars, 1975; Snider et al., 1984). If
accurate knowledge of macrofaunal distribution patterns is required over
a broad range of scales, it is recommended that transponder navigation be
used to locate the relative positions of individual box corers
(i 30 m; Rowe and Sibuet, 1983); dispersion data may then be analyzed,
for example, with techniques of spatial autocorrelation (Jumars and
Eckman, 1983). Processing of macrofaunal samples from box corers should
follow the procedures of Hessler and Jumars (1974) and Jumars (1975).
Soft-Bottom Infauna
(A) Megabenthos. Infaunal megabenthos are typically very difficult
to sample in the deep sea because of low population densities and, in
some cases, deep burrowing abilities. Some species that dwell near the
sediment-water interface, e.g., irregular urchins and molpad11d
holothuroids, may be retained in bottom trawls (personal observations;
Carney, 1983), while more abundant forms may be collectable with a
limited number of box core samples. Presence/absence and some abundance
data may be obtained through survey photography of characteristic burrow
structures (e.g., Ohta, 1984). There is no truly effective method for
sampling most of this faunal fraction, however.
(B) Macrobenthos, meiobenthos, and microbenthos. The recommended
sampling technique for these three infaunal size classes again is USNEL
11
-------
box coring (Messier and Jumars, 1974), due to considerations of sample
quality and efficiency. SubsampUng and sample processing procedures
from the following references are recommended: for macrobenthos -
Messier and Jumars (1974), Jumars (1975); for melobenthos - Snider et
al. (1984) for horizontal subsampllng (with a minimum subcore area of
20 cm2 and sample retention to a depth of >5 cm), and Thlel (1983) for
sample processing; and for mlcrobenthos (= nanobenthos) - Thlel (1983).
Hard-Bottom Fauna
Although abyssal disposal of low-level radioactive wastes would
likely occur In low-energy, soft-bottom environments, certain hard-bottom
communities 1n a disposal site may be of Interest: specifically, those
organisms growing on containment canisters. Data concerning hard-bottom
benthos are exceedingly difficult to collect with remote techniques. For
this reason, virtually all quantitative analyses of hard-substrate
deep-sea faunas have been conducted with submerslbles (e.g., Tunn1cl1ff,
1981; Rona et al., 1984). Unless abyssal-depth submerslbles become more
available, In situ study of hard-bottom benthos will be very limited.
Photographic surveys can provide some community-structure data for
hard-substrate megabenthos (e.g., Conan et al., 1981). If the hard
bottom occurs as small Islands on a bed of sediment (e.g., waste
canisters), a camera sled or remote vehicle equipped with paired stereo
cameras (Rowe and Slbuet, 1983; Holme and Mclntyre, 1984) can yield
quantitative abundance, dispersion, and size-frequency Information with
little risk to the camera vehicle. Some quantitative Information
concerning smaller size classes could be obtained through free-vehicle
emplacement and recovery of settling plates; however, the need to
preclude losses of organisms from surfaces during free-vehicle recovery
limits the utility of this approach. In the absence of submerslbles, no
monitoring technique can be strongly recommended for hard-bottom
macrobenthos, melobenthos, or mlcrobenthos, especially for baseline
studies.
Statistical Techniques for Community-Structure Analysis
A variety of community attributes are best elucidated through
statistical analysis. Indeed, many community characteristics (e.g.,
dispersion patterns, diversity, variations 1n species structure) can be
defined rigorously only 1n a statistical sense. A bewildering array of
statistical approaches exists to characterize these community features;
each approach has Inherent strengths and, 1n some cases, Insidious
weaknesses. A small subset of these approaches has been used effectively
to study marine benth.lc communities and, 1n particular, deep-sea
benthos. What follows 1s our (potentially biased) view of a limited
number of statistical techniques of utility 1n analysis of deep-sea
community data. In suggesting techniques, we have chosen to remain
within the subset used 1n the recent past to study deep-sea benthos
12
-------
because (a) these techniques are generally state of the art, and (b) this
will allow comparisons with extant studies, tending to minimize
statistical misapplication and facilitate meaningful Interpretation. No
value judgment Is necessarily Intended here; many other statistical
approaches may be equally valid. For reviews of community statistics,
see Plelou (1977, 1984), Boesch (1977), and Green (1979).
Analysis of dispersion patterns. The dispersion of organisms within
spatially located quadrats (e.g., box cores, survey photographs) can be
studied at two levels (Jumars et al., 1977; Jumars and Eckman, 1983):
(a) the frequency distribution of organism counts per quadrat (I.e.,
Ignoring the spatial location of samples, one asks, "Does the statistical
distribution of animal counts per quadrat differ from random
expectation?"), and (b) the orientation of these counts In space (e.g.,
one asks, "Do large or small counts tend to occur near similar or
dissimilar counts, with a probability greater than expected due to
chance?"). For single-species patterns at typical deep-sea densities,
randomness of frequency distributions may be effectively addressed
through use of the Index of dispersion, based on the Polsson
distribution; the recommendations and cautions of Jumars and Eckman
(1983), especially regarding low statistical power, should be heeded,
however.
Analysis of the spatial scale of patterns depends, to some degree,
on the spatial orientation and frequency distribution of quadrat counts.
If quadrat counts are normally distributed and quadrats are arranged 1n
linear series (e.g., a transect of survey photographs), the powerful
parametric techniques of "time" (or perhaps more appropriately, "space")
series analysis can be applied (e.g., Eckman, 1979; Smith and Hamilton,
1983). This autocorrelatlve approach allows resolution of single and
between-specles patterns over a broad range of scales. If single-species
abundances are not normally distributed, the spatial relationship of
quadrat counts (scale of patchlness) can be addressed through spatial
autocorrelation (CUff and Ord, 1973; Jumars et al., 1977; Jumars, 1978;
Jumars and Eckman, 1983; Smith and Hamilton, 1983). In contrast to
time-series analysis, this technique can be applied to quadrats situated
1n any spatial orientation, Including linear series.
Several techniques have been used on deep-sea benthos to address
between-species dispersion patterns, I.e., to determine whether species
are distributed Independently among quadrats. Time-series analysis
allows direct correlational assessment of species-pair relationships,
given the restrictive conditions of Gaussian varlates In a regular linear
array (e.g., Eckman, 1979). The dispersion Chi square of Jumars (1975)
can be used on less restricted data sets to determine whether groups of
species are homogeneously or heterogeneously distributed (Jumars and
Eckman, 1983). Alternatively, the "normalized expected shared species"
similarity measure (NESS of Grasssle and Smith, 1976), or other
13
-------
similarity measures (e.g., Bernstein et al., 1978) may be used to group
species that tend to co-occur in quadrats.
Levels of species diversity. Species diversity of deep-sea
communities has been assessed primarily with the statistically rigorous
technique of Hurlbert rarefaction (Hurlbert, 1971; Smith and Grassle,
1977). It is strongly advised that this technique be used in the future
because it allows objective comparison of species evenness and richness
in samples of varying sizes. For comparisons of diversity levels, it is
advisable to follow the recommendations of Tipper (1979), e.g., Thistle
(1983), and Smith (1983a).
Variations in species composition. A variety of similarity indices
and clustering techniques have been used to study changes over space and
time in the species composition of marine benthos. In particular, the
"normalized expected shared species" (NESS) (Grassle and Smith, 1976)
index has proved effective in both shallow-water (e.g., Sanders et al.,
1980) and deep-sea studies (Grassle et al., 1979; Hecker and Paul, 1979;
Smith, 1983a). Although the calculation of similarity measures such as
NESS may be unambiguous, the clustering of samples on the basis of
"measured" similarity can be extremely technique-sensitive; differing
clustering strategies can yield radically different intensities of
clustering (Williams, 1971). For ensuring comparability of studies, and
for avoiding the need for all deep-sea workers to become experts in
multivariate statistics, it is probably desirable to use a single
clustering strategy, e.g., the agglomerative, flexible sorting technique
of Grassle and Smith (1976; also used by Grassle et al., 1979; Sanders et
al., 1980; Smith, 1983) as an internal standard against which other
methods can be compared.
Bulk Samples of Deep-Sea Organisms
Biochemical studies of deep-sea organisms, e.g., measurement of
tissue levels of radionuclides or assessments of enzyme kinetics,
typically require non-quantitative, bulk samples of whole organisms. The
sampling techniques most effective in collecting large quantities of
animals from various size classes are listed below.
Megafauna
The less mobile elements of epibenthic, soft-bottom megafauna are
best collected in bulk through otter trawling (Holme and Mclntyre,
1984). Mobile scavenging megabenthos, such as lysianassid amphipods,
are most efficiently obtained with baited traps (e.g., Ingram and
Messier, 1983). There is no effective technique for collection of bulk
samples of most infaunal megabenthos occurring at typical abyssal
densities; bulk samples of hard-bottom megabenthos (or any other size
class) are only obtainable through direct collection by submersibles.
14
-------
Macrofauna
Excluding scavengers, eplbenthlc macrofauna are probably most
readily collected with eplbenthlc sleds (Holme and Mclntyre, 1984);
scavengers should be sampled with baited traps. Bulk collection of
with the USNEL box corer (Messier and
dredge may also yield satisfactory
Macrofauna must then be separated from
the sample through appropriately sized
Infaunal macrobenthos Is best done
Jumars, 1974), although the anchor
material (Sanders, et al., 1965).
the sediment, typically by washing
screens (Oumars and Hessler, 1974)
Melofauna and Mlcrobiota
All benthlc members of these size classes can be collected In bulk
with the USNEL box corer; samples must then be washed through a screen,
or otherwise treated, to concentrate organisms (Thlel, 1983).
Rates of Ecological Processes
Oceanographers are just beginning to evaluate the rates of most
ecological processes In the deep sea. As a consequence, the techniques
1n use are generally still In the developmental stages, and thus are
technologically and loglstically complicated. Methods currently In use
for studying several rate parameters are discussed below, although the
high-risk nature of these techniques raises questions regarding their
utility for routine monitoring programs.
Energy Flow
(A) Respiration. Respiratory demands of deep sea organisms from the
Individual to community level are currently most reliably assayed by
measuring uptake rates of oxygen In situ (Smith and Hlnga, 1983).
Respiration rates of Individual megafaunal animals have been measured
with baited-trap chambers (Smith and Hessler, 1974), or by placing
organisms in respiration chambers with a submersible manipulator (Smith,
1983b). Sediment community respiration rates are determined through use
of "bell-jar" respirometers, emplaced either by submersible or
free-vehicle (Smith and White, 1982; Smith and Hinga, 1983). All of the
respirometry measurements may suffer biases relating to (1) diffusion
artifacts due to altered flow conditions, (2) unknown significance of
anaerobic respiration, and (3) anomalous respiration rates resulting from
"handling" of organisms. Although the in situ techniques have been
employed in a variety of localities, their application is far from
routine. This approach is also very labor intensive; the deep-sea
respirometry program of K. I. Smith, Jr. requires the full-time services
of 3-5 expert personnel.
(B) Growth and production. Reliable growth rate data for
non- hydrothermal, deep-sea organisms are available for only a handful of
15
-------
species; these are based on radioisotope dating (Tureklan et al., 1975),
or time-series sampling of seasonally reproducing species (e.g., Gage et
al., 1980; Gage and Tyler, 1982). Less reliable growth rate estimates
are obtained from the placement of colonization trays at the deep-sea
floor (Grassle, 1977; Desbruyeres et al., 1980; Levin and Smith, 1984).
All the deep-sea growth data are from study sites less than 4000 m 1n
depth, and none have been used to generate population-production
estimates for species common In the surrounding benthos.
Radlolsotoplc dating of hundreds to thousands of Individuals 1s
Impractical, so time-series sampling and cohort analysis seem to be the
only reasonable means of obtaining growth and production-rate estimates
for abyssal organisms. While there Is evidence for seasonality of food
Input (Oeuser et al., 1981) and community respiration (Smith and Baldwin,
1984) In the abyss, seasonal reproduction has not been detected In
organisms below 4000 m, although good time-series data are lacking from
abyssal depths. It thus remains possible that cohort analysis could be
used to address growth and production rates for some abyssal species;
alternatively, future research on growth rings In, for example, fish
otollths (Wilson, 1982) and bivalve shells (Rhoads and Panella, 1970),
may yield time markers for growth rate studies.
(C) Feeding rates. There are no established methods for directly
measuring the feeding rates of deposit feeders, suspension feeders, or
predators In deep-sea benthos. Application of shallow-water techniques
(e.g., those outlined by Crisp 1n Holme and Mclntyre (1984)) has not been
affected. Community rates of deposit feeding can be estimated Indirectly
by calculating rates of sediment reworking based, for example, on
radionuclide profiles (e.g., Aller and DeMaster, 1984). However, implied
feeding rates depend on the mixing model used and Its assumptions (e.g.,
steady-state mixing) and thus are, at best, order of magnitude estimates
(e.g., DeMaster et al., 1985).
Population and Community Processes
Methods for studying population and community level processes (e.g.,
competitive exclusion, predation, disturbance, succession) either are
experimental, often yielding equivocal results (e.g., Smith, 1985b), or
nonexistent. While a qualitative picture of food-web structure can be
obtained, for example, through visual and immuno-diffusion assays of gut
contents (e.g., Feller et al., 1985), rates of predation and other
population processes are not readily addressable. Techniques for the
study of the rates of such processes are important topics of present and
future research; they are best included in monitoring programs as
feasibility studies rather than as sources of "hard" data.
16
-------
Section IV. MONITORING OF PAST LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL
IN SHALLOW MARINE ENVIRONMENTS
REVIEW
Low-level radioactive wastes have been released Into the oceans by
many countries over the past 40 years (Hagen, 1983). Most of the waste
has been introduced in the form of liquid discharges into coastal waters
from nuclear fuel reprocessing plants (e.g., Windscale, U.K.; La Hague,
France) or power reactors (e.g., Hanford, Washington, USA; Bradwell,
U.K.) (Park et al., 1983a; Hagen et al., 1983). In addition, the U.S.
and European countries have dumped packaged, solid wastes at various
sites in the shallow and deep ocean (Hagen, 1983; NEA, 1985). Most of
these waste-disposal programs have involved at least some environmental
monitoring. Thus, there exists a vast amount of literature addressing
the fate and flux of nuclear wastes in marine ecosystems (e.g., the
hundreds of papers published in IAEA symposia volumes in the last 20
years).
Biological monitoring programs at low-level radionuclide disposal
sites have generally had at least one of the following three objectives:
1. Assessment of the radiation hazard to human populations
resulting from contamination of the marine environment;
2. Detection of the presence or level of radionuclide contamination
of marine biota attributable to the disposal activities; and
3. Determination of the damage, if any, sustained by the ecosystem.
A variety of methodological
objectives.
approaches have been used to address these
Simple detection of the levels of radionuclide contaminants has
involved at least two monitoring strategies. The first is to simply
measure the activities of the isotopes of interest in the most abundant
(or most easily sampled) organisms in the area of study (e.g., Carey and
Cutshall, 1973; Pearcy and Vanderploeg, 1973; Feldt et al., 1981,
1985). This approach typically has been employed when ecosystem
functions, as well as nuclide transfer and concentration factors, are
poorly understood. Nonetheless, for results to be interpreted
meaningfully, some background information is required. In particular,
the radionuclides contained in the disposal material and the pre-disposal
levels of these nuclides in the monitored species must be known. (While
the requirement for such data may seem obvious, the usefulness of some
major monitoring programs has been limited by lack of appropriate
baseline Information (Park et al., 1983a; Schell and Nevissi, 1983). The
biggest weakness of this "common-organism" approach to monitoring is the
17
-------
Implicit assumption that at least some of the biota sampled have
relatively high concentration factors for the nuclides in question; if
the assumption is violated and all sampled organisms exhibit relatively
little nuclide uptake, high biological activities in other portions of
the ecosystem could easily go undetected. The application of
concentration-factor data from other species or other environments may do
little to avoid this pitfall, because nuclide accumulation in organisms
can vary greatly between species, environments, and life stages (Pearcy
and Vanderploeg, 1973; Pentreath, 1981; Wicker and Schultz, 1982).
The second approach used to detect the presence of radioactive
contaminants in marine biota is dependent on much greater a priori
knowledge of the ecosystem under study. This approach involves
monitoring of "indicator organisms," i.e., organisms that especially
concentrate the radionuclide(s) of interest (Young and Folsom, 1973;
Goldberg, 1976). If appropriate indicator organisms are known, the
presence (and, to some degree, levels) of contaminating nuclides within
the ecosystem can be detected with high sensitivity and efficiency by
sampling only a few species. Nuclide activities in indicator species may
provide a good "indication" of when contaminants enter the system, and
can be used as a worst case for assessment of radiation hazards to
species within the community. The indicator-species approach is probably
best implemented by selecting indicators that (a) come from a variety of
trophic levels and microhabitats, and (b) accumulate nuclides, as a
group, from both seawater and sediment (e.g., Sjoblom and Ojala, 1981).
This broad-based approach is desirable because food-chain and
physico-chemical processes may have differential (and often
unpredictable) effects on radionucllde availability and bioaccumulation
(e.g., Lowman, et al., 1971; Pentreath, 1981; Wicker and Schultz, 1982;
Schell and Nevissi, 1983; Osterberg, 1983).
It is perhaps unfortunate that, to be applied effectively, the
indicator-species approach requires significant amounts of pre-disposal
information. To select indicator species, monitors must have advance
knowledge of the radionuclides to be disposed of, and a good
understanding of the range of concentration factors for these Isotopes
within the ecosystem. To interpret indicator-species data, one must also
know the background levels of the relevant radionuclides, and how these
levels vary naturally over time. Thus, an extensive pre-disposal study
of the ecosystem to be impacted is extremely desirable.
Direct radiation damage to marine communities resulting from
low-level radioactive waste disposal has not been extensively assessed.
This is because the dosimetric calculations for marine disposal
situations indicate dose rates well below levels causing detectable
somatic, reproductive, or genetic effects in laboratory experiments
(Woodhead, 1973; Blaylock and Witherspoon, 1975; NEA, 1985). Even though
chronic, low-level dose effects are poorly understood (Blaylock and
18
-------
Wltherspoon, 1975; Park et al., 1983a), the consensus seems to be that
populations and communities, both shallow-water and deep-sea, have
sustained little radiation damage resulting from low-level waste disposal
(whether liquid discharge or packaged, solid wastes) (Woodhead, 1973;
Preston and Mitchell, 1973; Blaylock and Wltherspoon, 1975; Preston,
1975; Osterberg, 1975; Templeton, 1981; Feldt et al., 1981; NEA, 1985).
Thus, changes in field-population or ecosystem structure (variations in
fecundity, blomass, production, diversity, etc.). as opposed to tissue
levels of radlonuclldes, appear not to have been monitored in marine
disposal environments.
Human hazard resulting from low-level waste disposal has been
overwhelmingly assessed by way of the "critical pathway" approach
(Templeton, 1983). The objectives of this monitoring strategy are to
(often a priori) identify and evaluate the pathway(s) by which the
highest levels of disposed radiation may reach man (or any other critical
group of interest) (Preston and Mitchell, 1973). The critical pathways
are then modeled and/or monitored, and the release rate adjusted to
maintain the exposure level to the critical group below International
Commission for Radiation Protection limits, and to optimize the
cost-benefit relationship of the disposal operation (Webb, 1980; NEA,
1985). Actual application of the approach involves the following:
1. A pre-operational assessment of discharge limits based on a
model of radionuclide transport pathways within the disposal ecosystem
(Preston and Mitchell, 1973). Construction of a realistic model to
predict environmental movements of radionuclides requires detailed
knowledge of ecosystem structure and function (Webb, 1980). Processes
that must be considered 1n a marine setting include:
Waste-package degradation;
Advection and diffusion in the water column;
Sediment sorption and desorption of nuclides;
Sediment mixing and transport (both physical and biological);
Nuclide accumulation by organisms in various habitats and trophic
levels;
Food-chain transfer of both nuclides and biomass;
Mobility patterns of organisms; and
Human use of, and interaction with, the ecosystem and its products
Quantitative assessment of these processes is typically addressed
through pre-disposal surveys (Preston and Mitchell, 1973; NEA, 1985).
This information is then incorporated into ecosystem models to predict
rates of nuclide transfer to humans, given specific release rates of the
nuclides to be disposed of. The model is then used in two ways (Webb,
1980; NEA, 1985). First, parameters are set to lead to the maximum
possible dose rate, per unit discharge, to the critical group. Using an
arbitrary safety factor (e.g., 10 to 100), the models in this form are
19
-------
then used to set an initial, conservative release rate. Second, the
models are also used to conduct a sensitivity analysis for optimization
studies and to highlight topics requiring future research. This is done
by setting parameters at the most realistic values and then varying them
over reasonable ranges.
2. The post-operational phase of the critical pathway approach
involves monitoring, and continued modeling, of (a) the release rates of
nuclides, (b) nuclide levels in the critical pathway(s), and (c) the
radiation exposure rates within critical groups. This information,
combined with research on key steps in the transfer pathways, allows fine
tuning of transfer models, leading to refinements in release-rate limits
(Preston and Mitchell, 1973; NEA, 1985).
The critical pathway approach has both strengths and weaknesses.
One major strength 1s that it is a coherent, scientifically sound
strategy Involving deductive hypothesis (or model) forming and Iterative
testing (Templeton, 1983). In addition, it can be applied to a "critical
group" at virtually any organismal or ecological level, given sufficient
background information. Unfortunately, to apply this approach
effectively, a great deal of knowledge is required. The identity and
chemical form of the radionuclides to be released must be known, and
their ultimate release rates must be estimable (and controllable). The
dynamics of these nuclides within the environment must also be fairly
well understood; this usually requires detailed knowledge of the
structure and function of the disposal ecosystem, because most critical
pathways (at least to humans) involve biological accumulation and
transfer (Templeton, 1983; NEA, 1985). If background information 1s
inadequate, significant transfer pathways may be overlooked or
underestimated. Thus, the success of the critical pathway approach is
dependent on extensive pre-operational study of the disposal environment.
DISCUSSION - CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK GENERALIZABLE TO THE DEEP SEA
Shallow-water monitoring experience primarily provides a conceptual
framework for designing abyssal programs to assess (1) radiation
contamination of deep-sea species, and (2) the potential hazard to humans
(or some other circumscribed critical group) resulting from radioactive
waste disposal. Shallow-water studies have not directly assessed
disposal-related changes in ecosystem structure and kinematics. This is
because dose-rate calculations and laboratory studies suggest that past
disposal programs should have had no significant effects at the
population, community, or ecosystem level (e.g., Blaylock and
Witherspoon, 1975; Templeton, 1980; Anderson and Harrison, 1986). Thus,
little insight has been gained concerning which ecological parameters are
most likely to be impacted (and hence worth monitoring) following
low-level waste disposal.
20
-------
In contamination assessment, the taxa used as representative or
Indicator organisms 1n shallow water are not necessarily appropriate for
similar use 1n the abyss. This Is because of extreme environmental,
between-spedes, and even w1th1n-spedes variability In the
bloaccumulatlon of radionuclldes (Pentreath et al., 1980a; Wicker and
Schultz, 1982; Kathren, 1984). Some basic principles relevant to the
selection of representative organisms do emerge from shallow-water
programs, however. Radioactive transition elements (e.g., 1ron-55,
cobalt-60), typically formed by neutron activation, often are
biologically active and tend to Increase 1n concentration with each step
up the food web (Wicker and Shultz, 1982; Osterberg, 1983). Therefore,
1t 1s Important to monitor species at higher trophic levels. Many
radionuclldes, Including transuranlcs, also tend to bind to sediment
particles (Duursma and Gross, 1971; Pentreath et al., 1980b).
Radlonucllde levels 1n sediment dwellers, especially deposit feeders,
hence, should also be measured. Finally, nuclldes can accumulate on and
1n organisms through a variety of processes (e.g., external surface
adsorption; Ingestion and assimilation following deposit, suspension, or
predatory feeding; absorption across respiratory membranes (e.g.,
Harrison, 1973; Pentreath, 1981; Grlllo et al., 1981)), and all these
processes may be affected by the chemical state of the nuclide In
question, which 1n turn may vary with mlcrohabltat. Thus, It 1s highly
desirable to monitor species from a wide variety of lifestyles and
mlcrohabltats, especially for ecosystems 1n which nuclide transfer
pathways are poorly understood.
A review of hazard assessments conducted for shallow-water disposal
programs also yields little more than a conceptual approach (critical
pathway analysis) to the monitoring of radiation hazard from deep-sea
wastes. The structure and perhaps functioning of abyssal ecosystems are
different enough from shallow-water systems (e.g., Hessler, 1974; Smith,
1978) that near-shore transfer models cannot be applied to deep-sea
disposal. In addition, nuclide transfer processes (especially biological
ones) 1n deep-sea benthlc boundary layers remain very poorly understood
(Webb, 1980, Gomez et al., 1983; Park et al., 1983b), relegating most
hazard-assessment programs to the early pre-operatlonal study phase of
critical pathway analysis. Scientists are still trying to realistically
estimate nucllde release rates (Schell and Nevlssl, 1983) and potential
critical pathways (e.g., Gomez et al., 1983) 1n abyssal environments,
and thus are applying only the most basic concepts of critical pathway
analysis (Templeton, 1983). Although critical pathway estimates for
radlonucllde transfer from the deep sea to man have been made (Ool et
al., 1980; Mullln and Gomez, 1981; Templeton, 1983; NEA, 1985), model
structure and parameter values have of necessity been either very
conservative or quite arbitrary. These modeling exercises primarily
serve to highlight a number of critical research areas; e.g., the biology
of organisms, such as scavenging amphipods, rattall fish, and swimming
holothurolds, which may short circuit usual vertical transport pathways
(Gomez et al., 1983).
21
-------
Although the ecological impact of low-level waste disposal has not
been directly monitored in marine settings, a few insights into the
potential ecological consequences are available. At the organismal
level, nuclear bomb tests and laboratory studies suggest that
radiosensitivity increases with increasing evolutionary complexity
(Blaylock and Trabalka, 1978; Templeton, 1980; Osterberg, 1983); thus,
fish, and especially their gametes, eggs, and larvae, typically are the
most radiosensitive animals in marine systems. Disposal-induced changes
in dose rates to ichthyofauna, hence, should receive particular
consideration in deep-sea monitoring programs. At the population level,
animals most likely to suffer deleterious consequences within areas of
low-level contamination would seem likely to be species with high
concentration factors, and (a) low mobility and (b) low intrinsic rates
of increase ("r"). Low mobility would prevent individuals from moving
from the contamination site, prolonging exposure. A low "r" (largely a
function of fecundity and generation time) would yield low rates of
population recovery following disturbance (e.g., Pianka, 1974), such as
that resulting from radiotoxicity. Finally, studies of the dynamics of
natural communities suggest that, in many ecosystems, certain "keystone"
species play a role disproportionate to their biomass in determining
community composition (e.g., Paine, 1977). If keystone species are
known, assessment of their nuclide levels and dose rates should receive
special emphasis, as a deleterious radiation impact on these organisms
may have far-reaching consequences for the community.
CONCLUSIONS
In a poorly understood ecosystem such as the abyssal deep sea,
adequate assessment of radionuclide contamination of biota resulting from
waste disposal requires a broad-based monitoring approach. To determine
biological contamination levels and to allow potential assessment of the
ecological impact of this contamination, the monitoring program should:
1. Identify the major radionuclide components of the waste; and
2. Monitor the activities of these nuclides, before and after
disposal, in
a. Abundant species (community dominants in terms of biomass),
especially those with low mobilities and low fecundities;
b. Species from a variety of trophic levels and microhabitats.
For the deep-sea benthos, this ideally would include
demersal, epifaunal (soft and hard substrate), and infaunal
species of predators, deposit feeders, and suspension
feeders.
c. Top-level carnivores;
22
-------
d. F1sh;
e. Keystone species, 1f known; and
f. Seawater and sediments (to allow derivation of concentration
factors).
Additional considerations during monitoring should include
(a) seasonal variations in contamination levels, and (b) nucllde levels
in one or more control sites. Such a broad-based approach to
contamination assessment is extremely desirable in understudied
environments such as the abyssal deep sea, where a worst-case condition
cannot be determined by monitoring proven indicator species.
To evaluate the human hazard that 1s potentially obtained from
radioactive waste disposal, the monitoring program must: (1) identify
the major nuclide components of the waste, and (2) model its rates and
patterns of transfer through the marine ecosystem back to man.
For poorly known abyssal environments, it will require extensive
physical, chemical, and biological research programs to develop realistic
transfer models (e.g., the Subseabed Disposal Program (Anderson et al.,
1983)). As a preliminary approach (prior to model development and
disposal), 1t 1s Important to determine the in situ concentration factors
(for disposal nuclides) 1n species which:
a. May provide, or be in contact with, human resources (e.g., the
potentially fishable rattails, manganese nodule fauna);
b. Have unusually high production rates; and/or
c. Are especially mobile, in both horizontal and vertical
dimensions (e.g., scavenging amphipods and rattall fish).
Radionuclide activities should be monitored in these species in the
disposal site both before and after waste disposal.
Low-level radwaste release and disposal programs apparently have had
few or no deleterious effects, resulting from ionizing radiation, on
biological communities in the disposal environment. This also appears to
be true for deep-sea disposal programs (see review below). Thus, if
ecological parameters are to be monitored to assess potential
waste-disposal impacts, they must be selected on the basis of other than
low-level disposal experiences (e.g., on the basis of (a) nonradiological
impacts, such as "reef effects" of canisters, (b) extrapolation from
high-level radiation effects, (c) radiation sensitivities from laboratory
studies, (d) basic ecological principles, or (e) federal monitoring
regulations).
23
-------
Section V EFFECTS OF PREVIOUS DISPOSAL OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE
WASTES IN THE DEEP SEA
Packaged low-level radwastes have been dumped Into the deep sea 1n a
variety of locations. From 1946 to 1970, the United States used three
major deepwater dumpsltes for radioactive wastes (Dyer, 1976; Hagen,
1983): two off the northeast coast of the United States at depths of 2800
m and 3800 m, and one off the Pacific Coast near the Farallon Islands,
with subsltes at depths of 900 m and 1700 m. Various European countries
have used two major dumpsltes for packaged radwastes In the abyssal
northeastern Atlantic: one at a depth of 5300 m and a larger, presently
active site at 4400-m depth (Feldt et al., 1981; Hagen, 1983). Wastes at
all sites have consisted of a variety of nuclldes (especially
Caes1um-l37. Cobalt-60, Stront1um-90, and Plutonlum-238, 239, 240) and
typically have been contained 1n concrete or bitumen matrices cast 1n
200- to 300-Hter steel drums (Dyer, 1976; Hagen, 1983). Many of the
U.S. canisters also contained a central steel vessel holding a variety of
liquid or solid waste materials (e.g., contaminated rubber gloves,
filters, etc. (Dyer, 1976; Bowen and HolHster, 1981)). For more
detailed descriptions of these disposal sites and the associated dumping
activities, see Dyer (1976), Bowen and Holllster (1981), and Park et al.
(1983c).
In this discussion, we will summarize monitoring results that have
relevance to the development of monitoring criteria for future low-level
radwaste disposal activities 1n the deep sea. We will concentrate on
significant, or positive, results; the Interpretation of "negative"
results Is difficult, because lack of statistical significance, for
example, can mean either (a) that the effect sought was nonexistent, or
(b) that the sampling design or Intensity was not adequate to distinguish
an existing Impact.
RADIONUCLIDE CONTAMINATION
Radioactive contamination of the physical environment of many of the
disposal sites mentioned above has been assessed by measuring
radlonucllde activities 1n both water and sediment samples. Elevated
levels of Cs137 and Pu238» 239' and 24° (3 to 70 times background
activities) derived from waste materials have been measured 1n sediments
at two of the disposal sites (Pacific 900-m and Atlantic 2800-m).
However, the anomalous activities have been restricted to sediments
within 4 meters of canisters (Dyer, 1976; Schell and Sugal, 1980; Bowen
and Livingston, 1981). Thus, 1t appears that on time scales of decades,
most of the waste nuclldes released from canisters were Immobilized 1n
sediments very close to the release points. There has been no general
contamination of the physical environment of the disposal sites (Bowen
and Holllster, 1981).
24
-------
Benthlc biological contamination at waste sites has been addressed
only through remote collection (e.g., trawling) of organisms; thus, the
precise collection location, with respect to waste canisters, of these
organisms 1s unknown. Nevertheless, radlonucllde contamination
attributable to disposal wastes has been detected 1n at least four cases:
1. Elevated levels of Sr9^ and Cs137 have been measured 1n
anemones (especially Actlnauge abyssorum), decapods,
holothurans, and rattall and bathyterold and bathypterold fish
trawled near 13-16 year-old NEA dumpsltes 1n the abyssal North
Atlantic (Feldt et al., 1981, 1985).
2. At the NEA dumpslte active 1n 1984, anemones, asteroids,
gastropods, holothurlans, rattalls, and decapods were recovered
1n the same trawl with three waste canisters- members of all
these contained elevated levels of Pu^38, Pu"9j
Amerldum-241, and CS137 (Feldt et al., 1985). In addition,
Co&0 was enhanced 1n all but the anemones, and antlmony-125
was elevated only 1n the anemones.
3. Specimens of rattalls In the genus Coryphaenoldes collected at
the U.S. 3800-m dumpslte contained unusually high levels of
Am241, 1n skin, "viscera," and liver tissues (Schell and
Nevlssl, 1983). This contamination 1s not surprising because
several observers have seen rattalls "rooting" 1n sediment
around canisters, apparently feeding on benthlc organisms (Dyer,
1976; Schell and Nevlssl, 1983).
4. In addition to rattalls, samples of the holothurlan, Molpadla
blakel, showed evidence of Cs^37 and Ptj239,240 contamination
at the 3800 Atlantic dumpslte (Schell and Nevlssl, 1983). These
"sea cucumbers" are apparently Infaunal, conveyor-belt deposit
feeders (e.g., Carney, 1983).
Thus, on time scales of decades, there has been measurable
nonlocallzed (but still w1th1n-s1te) contamination of biota 1n low-level
waste disposal sites. Contaminated species Include sessile suspension
feeders (anemones), relatively sessile and mobile deposit feeders
(holothurlans and asteroids), and mobile predators (rattalls,
bathypterolds, and decapods). Contamination does not appear to have
approached levels expected to produce acute rad1otox1c1ty effects,
(Schell and Nevlssl, 1983; NEA, 1985; Feldt et al., 1985; Anderson and
Harrison, 1986).
RADIONUCLIDE TRANSFER PATHWAYS
Based on contamination studies, bloturbatlon Is the most Important
transfer mechanism for concentrated radlonuclldes (especially those with
high sediment distribution coefficients) at low-energy deep-sea sites, at
25
-------
least on time scales of decades (Dayal et al., 1979; Bowen and
Livingston, 1981). This 1s because deep-sea sediments apparently bind
many radionuclides released from canisters and thus act as a barrier to
migration (Bowen and Holllster, 1981). In high energy sites, the 3800-m
Atlantic site (Ryan and Farre, 1983) or the HEBBLE region (Holllster et
al., 1984), where sediment erosion 1s relatively common, physical
sediment transport likely would supersede bloturbation In the transfer of
sediment-bound radlonuclldes.
Disposal monitoring also Implicates deep-sea rattalls as an
Important link 1n transfer pathways, some of which may lead to man.
Rattalls apparently feed on benthos around waste containers (Including
molpadlld holothurlans (Carney, 1983), which also concentrate some waste
nuclldes) and may thus be exposed to elevated levels of waste
radlonuclldes. In addition, abyssal rattalls are horizontally and
vertically mobile (Muslck and Sulak, 1978; Smith et al., 1979), their
larvae apparently ascend to shallower depths, and dead Individuals are
sometimes collected 1n surface waters (Wilson and Waples, 1983).
Finally, some deepwater macrourlds are commercially fished (Dyer, 1976).
Thus, rattalls are prime candidates for assimilating concentrated waste
radlonuclldes and then transferring them Into pelagic ecosystems and,
possibly, to man.
Recent studies of benthopelaglc holothurlans, while conducted
outside of dumpsltes, suggest that these organisms may be important 1n
dispersal of sediment and associated radlonuclldes. These holothurlans
feed on surface sediments and may travel over large horizontal and
vertical distances, Including from deep seafloor to surface waters. They
thus may constitute an Important link between deep-sea sediments and
epipelaglc ecosystems (Dave Pawson, personal communication, 1986).
NONRADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Observed Effects
Evidence of current scour and/or enhanced sediment deposition with'n
a meter or two of waste canisters has been seen on a number of occasions
1n the more energetic deep-sea disposal sites (Schell and Nevissi, 1983;
Ryan and Farre, 1983). This 1s not surprising as waste canisters
protrude well into the logarithmic portion of the boundary layer (see
Holllster et al., 1984), and should markedly alter bottom shear stress
around canisters (Nowell and Jumars, 1984). Scour and/or sediment
deposition could cause physical disturbance of infauna (e.g., Brenchley.
1981); alternatively, the flux of food to suspension and deposit feeders
could be enhanced, yielding increased benthic production near canisters
(Eckman, 1985).
26
-------
Waste canisters 1n the deep sea have also proven to be excellent
substrate for colonization by attached suspension feeders. A wide
variety of organisms, Including glass sponges (Dyer, 1976), serpulld
polychaetes (Relsh, 1981,1983), crlnolds, br1s1ng1d asteroids, anemones,
ophlurolds, and echlnoids, have colonized waste drums, often at
surprisingly high densities (R. Dyer, unpublished photographs).
Suspension feeders differentially attach to canisters, presumably because
they protrude above the viscous sublayer (HolHster et al., 1984). making
passive suspension feeding more economical (Jumars and Gallagher, 1982).
Thus, the presence of waste containers 1s likely to substantially enhance
the local production of suspension feeding benthos (cf. Monnlot and
Segonzac, 1984). The production rates and concentration factors of these
attached organisms are of particular Interest because (1) these animals
likely will be exposed to elevated levels of radlonucHdes, and (2) they
may provide a first link In food-web transfer pathways.
Expected Effects
Placement of waste canisters on the abyssal seafloor 1s also
expected to have several additional environmental consequences, as
discussed below; thus far, disposal sites have not been monitored closely
enough to assess the magnitude of these effects.
Waste canisters often contain fairly large concentrations of organic
material (contaminated animal carcasses, rubber gloves, lab coats,
benchtops, etc., and, 1n some cases, an organic bitumen matrix) (Bowen
and HolHster, 1981). In the food-poor abyssal deep sea, this material
1s likely to constitute a substantial organic enrichment, potentially
yielding markedly Increased benthlc production 1n the disposal
locality. The magnitude of such an effect 1s difficult to predict, as 1t
would depend at least on the mass of organic matter disposed of, Its
release rate at the site, and Its availability as an energy source to
benthos. Local organic enrichment could stimulate blotransfer of waste
nuclldes by enhancing production and attracting mobile predators, for
example.
It seems likely that such enrichment effects would only be
significant 1n the general vicinity of the waste canisters, however. The
following crude calculation suggests that general enrichment of the
entire disposal area is unlikely to be significant. If the likely upper
limit of 25,000 canisters, each containing 5 kg of organic carbon
(equivalent to 100 kg of animal tissue, or a very large number of rubber
gloves), were dumped 1n a 260-km2 area (R. Dyer, personal
communication), they would constitute a total enrichment for the site of
0.5 g org C per square meter. If this carbon were released at a constant
rate over 30 years (cf. Dexter, 1982), its release rate would be less
than the expected flux of organic carbon from surface waters to typical
abyssal benthos (cf. Smith and Hinga, 1983). Any resulting change 1n
production would almost certainly be undetectable, given current
27
-------
sensitivities in the measurement of production and/or blomass In the
abyss. However, this small organic increment may be a major catalyst to
radionuclide introduction into the food web.
In addition to organic enrichment, waste canisters are likely to
have some toxic effects on local benthos. Oxidation of canister metals
may deplete oxygen in sediment pore waters 1n the Immediate vicinity of
drums (Bowen and Hollister, 1981), while toxic corrosion products may
also be released from canister metals (Bowen and Hollister, 1981). Both
of these effects could contribute to sediment zones of low faunal
activity and/or production within a meter or so of waste canisters.
Disposed waste packages will also have a hydrodynamic influence on
the seafloor. Most of the abyssal seafloor, excluding manganese-nodule
fields and areas of unusually energetic currents, 1s characterized by a
hydraulically smooth, turbulent bottom-boundary layer (Nowell and Jumars,
1984). This means that the boundary layer has a diffusive sublayer
(circa 1 mm thick) where molecular diffusion dominates mass transfer, a
viscous sublayer (about 1 cm thick) where viscous forces dominate
momentum transfer, and a logarithmic layer (1-10 m thick) where turbulent
forces prevail (HolHster et al., 1984). A single waste canister would
constitute a significant roughness element, causing turbulent eddies to
disrupt the viscous and diffusive sublayers and impinge on the seafloor.
This would yield zones of both Increased and decreased bed shear stress
(cf. Eckman and Nowell, 1984), causing rates of sediment deposition,
suspended sediment flux, and sediment-water chemical exchange to vary
around the canister over spatial scales of meters.
The direction and magnitude of such hydrodynamic effects are
difficult to predict without detailed knowledge of the physical,
chemical, and sedimentologlcal characteristics of the site (Hollister et
al., 1984). A prediction can be made, however, concerning the maximum
bottom area of a disposal site likely to be hydrodynamlcally impacted by
waste canister. Near-bed flow around a canister will be affected to a
radius of no more than 20 diameters (-20 m) from the container (Nowell
and Jumars, 1984). Thus, an ambitious disposal program of 25,000
canisters in an area of 260 km2 (R. Dyer, personal communication) would
impact less (probably much less) than 12% of the disposal area, leaving
>88% of the site unaffected.
Large, tight groups of canisters resulting, for example, from
hopper-type dumping of waste packages could have somewhat different
hydrodynamic effects on the seabed. If packages were spaced closely
enough, skimming flow (Nowell and Church, 1979, Eckman et al., 1981)
could occur in the interior of the cluster, potentially reducing shear
stress over quite a large area of the seafloor (tens to hundreds of
square meters). Chemical fluxes could then decrease, and sediment
accumulation rates increase, at the sediment-water Interface within this
region. Such effects are likely to alter benthlc faunal structure by
28
-------
changing food flux to suspension and deposit feeders (Nowell and Jumars,
1984) and by altering flushing rates of metabollcally significant
chemicals (oxygen, sulfldes, etc.)- Skimming flow effects would,
however, Impact a much smaller total area than that calculated above for
widely spaced waste canisters.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on past dumping experiences, disposal of packaged, low-level
radwastes 1n the abyss 1s likely to have marked, but unpredictable, local
(meter-scale) effects In terms of elevated radlonucllde levels (In
sediments and nearby fauna) and alteration of benthic faunal community
structure and production due to nonradlologlcal Impacts. For determining
the fate of disposed nuclldes and the general Impact of disposal
activities, waste packages will have to be relocated on the seafloor to
allow time-series sampling of sediment, water, and biota 1n precise
locations (± 10s of cm) around the canisters. Faunal groups sampled
should Include sessile suspension feeders attached to canister surfaces
and Infaunal benthos 1n the Immediate vicinity of packages, as these are
likely to provide Initial links 1n blotransfer pathways, and be most
severely Impacted (radlologlcally and otherwise) by disposal activities.
It should be noted, however, that these local effects are unlikely to
yield major alterations of ecological conditions In a typical disposal
area of 260 km2.
General radiological effects, In particular broad-scale, low-level,
radlonucllde contamination of megafauna (rattalls, deposit-feeding
holothurians, suspension feeders), are also to be expected on time scales
of decades. Major transfer mechanisms of disposed radionuclldes In
quiescent abyssal environments are likely to include (a) bioturbation of
contaminated sediments, with both vertical and horizontal mixing
processes playing a role, and (b) bloaccumulation and transfer involving
deposit feeders (e.g., Holpadia). suspension feeders (e.g.,
Chitonanthus). and mobile species preying on benthos (e.g., rattalls 1n
the genus Coryphaenoldes). Thus, previous disposal experience suggests
that major bloaccumulation pathways will Include direct uptake of
nuclldes from sediment (either deposited or in suspension) or from
sediment-associated prey species.
In more energetic abyssal environments, e.g., the HEBBLE region,
physical processes of sediment erosion and advection probably will
predominate 1n the transfer and dilution of waste nuclides.
Most remote, haphazard techniques for sampling benthos (e.g., coring
and dredging) are unlikely to elucidate the impact of disposal
activities, because most effects will be localized around waste packages
rather than broadly manifested over the entire disposal area.
29
-------
Section VI. SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS FOR RADIONUCLIDE ASSAYS
To determine the fate and Impact of disposed radionuclides, you must
follow the movement of released nuclldes through the deep-sea ecosystem.
Rates of waste nucllde transfer can be evaluated only 1f the background
or baseline levels of the Isotopes In question are known. We have
compiled environmental radionuclide data with two goals In mind: (1) to
obtain the best estimate of the background levels of selected LLRW
components 1n abyssal benthlc organisms from nine dominant taxa, and
(2) to determine the minimum sample size, 1n grams wet weight, required
to measure the minimum and maximum expected waste nucllde activities,
using standard techniques for radloanalysis. Radlonuclldes considered
Include (1) likely major components of LLRW (Co60, Cs137, Pu239 and
24°, and Am241), (2) major activation products likely to obtain from
waste container metals (Fe55 and Nickel-63), and (3) a radionuclide
(Sr90) of high biological significance due to its bone-seeking
characteristics (Kathren, 1984).
Appendix 1 is a detailed presentation of the expected ambient
concentrations of the above radionuclides 1n major faunal taxa in the
North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans below 1000 m. In addition, the
calculation of sampling requirements for detection of specific nucllde
activities is explained. Table 2 1s a brief summary of these sampling
requirements it gives the wet mass of whole-organism tissue needed to
detect, using standard methods, the minimum and maximum expected levels
of activity.
This compilation of radionuclide data for benthos from the deep
North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans (Appendix 1, Table 2) 1s
disappointing for at least two reasons. The expected levels (either
minima or maxima) of most of the nuclides in question either (1) are not
detectable using relatively standard techniques, or (2) are not even
calculable due to an insufficient data base. It 1s additionally
discouraging to find that those nuclldes with measurable activities
require surprisingly large sample sizes -- tens to thousands of grams of
tissue to provide sufficient radioactivity for a single measurement.
It must be stressed, however, that these estimates of required
biomass are very crude; given the quality of the available data base,
they are reliable to no better than an order of magnitude. In subsequent
sections, these biomass "requirements" will be used as very crude targets
in outlining sampling strategies, i.e., It will be asked whether the
collectable biomass of a species 1s likely to exceed the estimated
sampling "requirement." Shortfalls by several orders of magnitude will
be interpreted to mean that background levels of the nuclides in question
may well be undetectable. Given such shortfalls, we will assume that
baseline radioanalyses of these species are not worth conducting.
Nonetheless, it may be desirable to "spot check" some of these species
30
-------
for unexpectedly high nucllde levels. Alternatively, more sensitive
radloassays could perhaps be employed. Our expertise lies 1n biological
oceanography, so we defer the choice between such potential alternatives
to radlobiologlsts.
-------
Section VII. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVE DEEP-SEA ORGANISMS
In previous sections we discussed (1) monitoring practices and
results from LLRW disposal 1n shallow-water environments, (2) effects of
previous LLRW disposal 1n deep-sea environments, and (3) expected
background levels and sampling requirements for waste nuclldes 1n abyssal
benthos. Based on these discussions, we arrived at the following
conclusions:
1. To evaluate radlonucUde contamination and transfer 1n a poorly
understood ecosystem such as the abyssal deep sea, you should
monitor concentration factors and nucllde levels before and
after disposal 1n a group of "representative" organisms selected
because of their potential roles 1n transport processes. These
transport representatives should Include:
Blomass dominants;
Highly productive species;
Highly mobile species;
Keystone species;
Species from a variety of taxa (Including fish), trophic
levels, and mlcrohabltats; and
Species of Importance as/to human resources.
2. Regardless of radioactivity levels, "standard" radlonucUde
analyses for any of a variety of waste nuclldes will require at
least 3 g (wet weight) of tissue from single deep-sea species
(Table 2); for dominant Infaunal taxa, >15 g will be required.
Whole-organism tissue samples of tens to thousands of grams will
be needed to measure the expected background levels of those
nuclldes likely to be detectable we somewhat arbitrarily set
a sampling requirement of 100 g wet weight for measurements of
background radlonucUde levels. This sample size 1s likely to
be within an order of magnitude of actual requirements. If
radloanalyses of specific parts of organisms (e.g., muscle
tissue) are desired, sample requirements are likely to be much
larger (V. Noshkln, personal communication).
3. The most marked nuc!1de-contam1nat1on effects of waste disposal
are likely to occur within meters of canisters, with local
transfer processes being dominated by bloturbatlon of
contaminated sediments. Benthos likely to show the highest
levels of contamination will be organisms occurring on, or near,
waste canisters, especially deposit and suspension feeders with
low mobility rate. A variety of these organisms should be
monitored as representative organisms for "worst-case"
radio-contamination and toxldty effects.
32
-------
4. Low-level Increases 1n rad1onucl1des are likely to occur over
areas of tens to hundreds of km2, on time scales of decades.
Organisms affected will Include megafauna of a variety of
feeding types and dispersal abilities, Implicating deposit
feeding, suspension feeding, and predatlon 1n nucllde
bloaccumulatlon and transfer.
5. The nonradlologlcal effects of low-level waste disposal on
abyssal benthos are likely to be restricted to within 20 m of
waste packages.
Based on these conclusions, a two-tiered monitoring program 1s
required to address the full Impact of LLRW disposal 1n the abyss.
First, pre- and post-dumping levels of waste radlonucHdes should be
monitored 1n a variety of species from the general disposal area, with
blomasses adequate to meet radloanalytlcal requirements (I.e., monitoring
of the "general environment"). Second, the local (meter-scale)
environment of waste canisters should also be monitored to evaluate
worst-case radlonucUde contamination, transfer processes Involving
concentrated radlonuclldes, and the benthlc ecological Impact of disposal
practices ("local" monitoring). We will now discuss the requirements and
goals for the "general" and "local" levels of monitoring, In the context
of the ecology of abyssal benthos, to aid In the selection of
representative organisms and ecological parameters.
GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING - WASTE NUCLIDE LEVELS
Standing Crop Considerations
The megafauna -- defined operationally as those organisms "sampled"
by trawls, sleds, baited traps, and photography -- Is the only size class
1n the abyss that meets the radloanalytlcal blomass requirements outlined
above. Typically, trawl and baited traps collect tens to thousands of
grams (wet weight) of Individual species on the continental rise and
abyssal plains of both the NW Atlantic and NE Pacific (Shulenberger and
Hessler, 1974; Thurston, 1979; Haedrlch et al., 1980; Pearcy et al.,
1982; Carney and Carey, 1982; Ingram and Hessler, 1983; W1ck1ns, 1983;
Smith and Baldwin, 1985; Stein, 1985), suggesting that background levels
of a number of waste nuclldes should be measurable for a variety of
megafaunal animals.
The standing crop of smaller size classes 1s probably Inadequate to
meet these radloanalytlcal requirements, given present sampling
technology and reasonable logistical constraints. Community blomass for
the macrofauna (animals not collected In trawls or traps, I.e., < 1-10 mm
In largest dimension, but retained on a 0.3 mm sieve (Hessler and Jumars,
1974)) at abyssal depths typically 1s about 1 g per square meter (Rowe,
1983). This mass Is distributed quite evenly among hundreds of species
33
-------
(Jumars and Gallagher, 1982). Thus, collection of one minimally sized
sample (>15 g wet weight for polychaetes or crustaceans) of a single
species for radioanalysis would likely require recovery of the macrofauna
from hundreds of square meters of seafloor, followed by sorting through
approximately 100,000 individual organisms (Jumars and Gallagher, 1982;
Sibuet et al., 1984), expending tens of hours of ship time (e.g., for
multiple epibenthic sled deployments) and hundreds of person hours.
Biomasses of meiofauna (300 - 42 urn (Thiel, 1983)) and more diminutive
size classes may be comparable to that of the macrofauna (Thiel, 1983;
Snider et al., 1984), but sampling and processing limitations are even
more restrictive (Thiel, 1983), making radionuclide analysis of these
organisms exceedingly impractical.
Given that general environmental levels of waste radionuclides are
probably analyzable only in the megafauna, at least two questions spring
to mind: (1) What species are likely to be encountered, at analyzable
biomasses, in abyssal benthos off the east and west coast of the United
States? and (2) How do these species fit into our requirements for
representative organisms (i.e., biomass and production dominants,
taxonomically diverse, highly mobile, benthopelagic links, keystone
species, economically significant, or potentially radiation sensitive)?
To address these questions, we will discuss the dominant megafaunal
species likely to be collected in abyssal localities 1n the NW Atlantic
and NE Pacific Oceans, and then briefly review known aspects of their
biology/ecology. We will then summarize our findings by detailing how
available species do or do not meet the requirements.
Two abyssal areas (>4000 m in depth), one in the NW Atlantic and one
in the NE Pacific, have been studied well enough to make some general
statements concerning megafaunal species composition. Partial community
descriptions from other abyssal areas in these ocean basins can then be
used to assess the generality of the findings at the two relatively well
studied sites.
Northwest Atlantic
Megafaunal community composition. Haedrich et al. (1980) studied
the deep-sea megafauna, using trawls, off New England, USA, at depths
ranging from 40 to 4896 m. They found a coherent faunal assemblage,
distinct from communities at shallower depths, between 3879 and 4698 m on
the continental rise and abyssal plain. Megafaunal abundance in this
zone was overwhelmingly dominated by three species: the ophiuriod
Amphiophiura bullata (71%). the anomuran Parapagurus pjloslmanus (19%),
and the ophiuroid Ophiomuslum armigerum (7%). No other species
contributed more than 1% to total community abundance. Megafaunal
biomass was somewhat more evenly distributed, with five species
contributing more than 1% of the total wet weight: the macrourid fish
Coryphaenoides armatus (57%), Parapagurus pilosimanus (24%), Amphiophlura
34
-------
bullata (8%), a stauroteuthld octopod (5%), and the holothurold Molpadla
blakei (3%). Muslck and Sulak (1978) and Carney (1983) found essentially
the same megafaunal assemblage (excluding the stauroteuthld) 1n the
southern reaches of Haedrlch et al.'s (1980) study area during subsequent
trawling operations.
Based on the above data, the trawlable blomass of five megafaunal
species at abyssal depths off New England appears high enough to meet the
somewhat arbitrary radloanalytical sampling requirements mentioned above
(100 g wet weight). In other words, a reasonable trawl effort (5-10 h
using Haedrlch et al.'s techniques, 2-5 h on bottom using the methods of
Stein (1985)) seems likely to yield a large enough sample to measure
maximum expected background levels of one or more of the waste
radlonuclides. The large errors associated with estimating expected
background levels of the nuclldes 1n question makes any stronger
statement Impossible.
It appears that Haedrlch et al.'s (1980) data are fairly typical of
abyssal megafaunal communities off the U.S. east coast. Off the coast of
Virginia below 4000 m, C. armatus dominates demersal fish blomass (Muslck
and Sulak, 1978), with Coryphaenoldes leptolepls also of some
Importance. Park et al. (1983) trawled significant blomasses of C^.
armatus In the NE Atlantic and Wilson and Waples1 (1983) data suggest
that this species will be the dominant abyssal macrourid throughout the
North Atlantic. Parapagurus also seems to be broadly distributed, having
been collected or photographed 1n the abyss off North Carolina (George,
1979a) and Florida (Keller, 1983). Amphlophlura bullata Is a dominant
abyssal ophiuroid throughout the western North Atlantic (Tyler, 1980),
and has been collected or photographed 1n relative abundance along the
Gay Head-Bermuda Transect (Schoener, 1967) and on the Hatteras Abyssal
Plain (Keller, 1983). In addition, Ophiomusium sp., possibly armigerum.
has been photographed at relatively high densities on the Hatteras
Abyssal Plain. Thus, there Is some evidence that four of Haedrlch et
al.'s six most abundant species can be trawled 1n analyzable quantities
at abyssal depths 1n much of the NW Atlantic.
Baited traps also can collect large samples of necrophagous
megafauna, often Including mobile benthos not captured by alternative
methods (Hessler et al., 1978; Thurston, 1979; Ingram et al., 1983).
Trapping efforts from a number of locations below 4000-m depths In the
North Atlantic have yielded large samples (often >100 g) of the
lyslanassld amphlpod Eurythenes gryllus and the macrourld C. armatus
(Thurston, 1979; Wlckens, 1983; Ingram and Hessler, 1984; C. Ingram,
personal communication). Additionally, 10-100 gram quantities of the
lysianassld Parallcella caperesca also appear to be obtainable, based on
several trapping studies (Thurston, 1979; Ingram and Hessler, 1984; C.
Ingram, personal communication). Thus, it is likely that at least three
species of megafaunal necrophages, two of which are not collected in
35
-------
trawl samples, are obtainable 1n analyzable (100-g) quantities using
baited traps in the abyssal NW Atlantic.
In summary, a very limited data base suggests that seven megafaunal
species (C. armatus. P. pilosimanus, A. bullata, 0. armigerum. H. blakej,
E. gryllus. and P. caperesca) may be collectable in quantities >100 g per
station below 4000-m depths off New England, and possibly throughout the
abyssal NW Atlantic. This conclusion 1s based largely on fragmentary,
qualitative data, and the apparent predictability of occurrence of these
species must be treated cautiously. For example, differences in surface
productivity, distance from land, and current regime may affect the
abundance and composition of abyssal megafauna (Pearcy et al., 1982;
Carney and Carey, 1982; Carney et al., 1983; Sibuet et al=, 1984; Monniot
and Segonzac, 1984), causing unpredictable variations on spatial scales
as small as 100 km. This community variability highlights the need for
site-specific studies. Nonetheless, the apparent general abundance of
these seven species suggests their potential sampling suitability as
representative organisms, warranting the following review of their
ecology.
Ecology of dominant megafaunal species. In the following paragraphs
we review available data concerning the distribution, feeding habits,
mobility, life history, production, and synecologlcal roles of the seven
prominent megafaunal species listed above.
1. Coryphaenoides armatus. This large, mobile macrourid (up to
100 cm total length) is a broadly distributed species (2000-5000-m depths
in post-larval stages) that dominates ichthyofaunal biomass at slope-rise
depths of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans (HaedMch and Rowe,
1977; Somero et al., 1983; Wilson and Waples, 1983). It probably also
predominates 1n the central gyres of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans,
although not 1n the Pacific below 4300 m, where 1t 1s supplanted by
C.^yaquinae (Wilson and Waples, 1983). Early larval life is probably
spent 1n near surface waters (Musick and Sulak, 1978; Stein, 1980). It
subsequently migrates to the bottom, where, during juvenile stages, 1t
feeds on a wide variety of benthos including polychaetes, crustaceans,
holothuroids, anemones, gastropods, decapods, ophiurolds, and
foramlnlfers (Pearcy and Ambler, 1974; McLellan, 1977; Musick and Sulak,
1978; Tyler, 1980; Feller et al., 1985; Stein, 1985). Later 1n life,
Its dietary preferences apparently shift towards pelagic prey, Including
cephalopods, shrimp, and fish (Pearcy and Ambler, 1974; Stein, 1985).
Its occurrence hundreds of meters off the seafloor (Smith et al., 1979)
presumably 1s due to foraging for pelagic prey. As mentioned above, C_._
armatus also 1s strongly attracted to bait, indicating necrophagy (e.g.,
Stockton and DeLaca, 1982; Wilson and Waples, 1983); this species may
play an important role in the dispersal of baltfall energy to the
surrounding benthos (cf. Stockton and DeLaca, 1982; Smith, 1985).
36
-------
Reproduction 1n C. armatus does not occur until females are very
large (>74 cm TL), yielding a relatively high fecundity on the order of
6.2 million eggs (Stein, 1985); the species Is hypothesized to be
semelparous (Stein, 1985). There 1s evidence that some macrourids
undergo spawning migrations (Muslck and Sulak, 1978); 1t 1s thus
conceivable that C. armatus congregates 1n certain localities for release
of reproductive products.
Respiration rates of C. armatus have been measured 1n situ (Smith,
1978), yielding very low weight-specific metabolic requirements relative
to shallow dwelling gadiforms. A rough estimate of population
respiratory demands at 3650 m in the NW Atlantic suggests that C. armatus
may use as much as 3% of the energy respired by all consumers (many
hundreds of species) within the benthic boundary layer (Smith and White,
1982); it thus may play a prominent role 1n the energetics of abyssal
communities.
Biochemical studies indicate that C. armatus shows marked enzymatic
and structural adaptations to the high pressures and the low temperatures
and food availabilty of the abyss (Somero, 1982; Somero et al., 1983).
This suggests laboratory (or mesocosm) studies of this macrourid (e.g.,
to address radiation sensitivity) would be very difficult, requiring the
recovery and laboratory maintenance of specimens at abyssal pressures. A
pressure retaining rattail trap has been developed, however (R. Wilson,
personal communication).
Rattails, such as C. armatus. may be important in structuring
infaunal communities in the abyss. A number of workers have argued that
disturbance of Infaunal populations due to predation, for example, is
likely to be important 1n maintaining the high species diversity typical
of deep-sea macrobenthos (Dayton and Hessler, 1972; Grassle and Sanders,
1973; Huston, 1980; Rex, 1983). Because of Its abundance and benthic
feeding habits (see above citations), C. armatus may play a major role as
a macrofaunal "cropper." Smith and White's (1982) energetics
calculations indicate, in fact, that C. armatus could respire 5% of the
macrofaunal community biomass annually; this could well represent
substantial predation pressure 1n poorly productive abyssal ecosystems
(Rowe, 1983).
Finally, rattails such as C. armatus occupy a position of unusual
distinction in being deep-sea species of potential direct economic
importance to man. Some bathyal macrourids are fished commercially
(Dyer, 1976), and it is conceivable (although unlikely) that macrourid
fishing could be extended into the abyss. Growth and production rates of
C. armatus are unknown, however, so its real potential as a fisheries
resource cannot as yet be evaluated.
In summary, C. armatus fulfills some requirements for organisms
representative of transport pathways and worst-case effects. It is a
37
-------
widely distributed blomass dominant and a top level carnivore, and It
provides a link between benthlc and pelagic ecosystems 1n the abyss. In
addition, 1t may play a keystone role 1n abyssal community ecology and
may be of potential economic Importance to man. Finally, as a fish, 1t
1s likely to be an especially radiosensitive component of the benthlc
ecosystem. It thus Is a highly desirable species 1n which to monitor
waste radlonucllde 1n an LLRW disposal site.
2. Parapagurus plloslmanus. This large anomuran hermit crab 1s
widely distributed In the North and South Atlantic (Saint Laurent, 1972),
with a depth range of 800-5000 m off the coast of North Carolina (George,
1979a). George (1979a) suggests that there are different races of F\.
plloslmanus at various depths; a reasonable alternative hypothesis may be
that P. plloslmanus 1s, 1n fact, a species complex (sensu Grassle and
Grassle, 1976) distributed over a depth gradient. This pagurldean
produces planktonlc larvae that feed 1n surface waters (Williams and
Levetzow, 1967). It thus may disperse materials (e.g., radionuclides)
between abyssal and epipelagic ecosystems. P. pllosimanus can also move
along the seafloor as an adult, allowing smaller-scale horizontal
dispersal.
Based on analogy with shallow-water pagurideans, P. pllosimanus is
likely to feed both opportunistically as a scavenger and as a deposit
feeder (MacGlnnitie and MacGinnltie, 1968). Deposit feeding probably
occurs on surface sediments and likely involves some particle selection.
Individuals of P. piloslmanus collected from 1000-m depths have been
maintained 1n the laboratory at atmospheric pressure for over one year,
with some individuals undergoing reproduction (George, 1979b).
Parapagurus plloslmanus may thus be a good deep-sea organism for
laboratory, or mesocosm, studies of rad1osens1tivity and nucllde
accumulation (sensu Grille et al., 1981).
The ecology of P. pllosimanus has not been studied, so it is not
possible to assess its role in abyssal community processes. As a mobile
scavenger, it could contribute to the dispersal of organic carbon
arriving at the seafloor in large food falls a role of some potential
significance (Dayton and Messier, 1972; Stockton and DeLaca, 1982; Smith,
1985).
In conclusion, as a "representative organism," P. pilosimanus helps
to fulfill requirements of trophic and taxonomlc diversity (i.e., as a
deposit feeding decapod), community dominance, and mobility, and serves
as a link between benthlc and pelagic ecosystems.
3. Amphiophiura bullata. This large ophiuroid is broadly
distributed at abyssal depths 1n the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans
(L1tv1nova and Sokolova, 1971; Tyler, 1980). Off the NE U.S. coast, 1t
38
-------
ranges at least from depths of 2400 to 5600 m (Rowe and Menzies, 1969;
Schoener and Rowe, 1970). Based on egg size and fecundity (circa 300),
A. bullata probably undergoes direct development, although It 1s possible
that 1t has a ledthotrophlc larval stage that disperses planktonlcally
(Schoener, 1972; Tyler, 1980). As an adult, It exhibits quite high
mobility, at least when disturbed by submerslbles (Carney, 1983). Like
many deep-sea ophlurolds, A. bullata Is omnivorous, feeding on sediment,
detrltal Sargassum and attached bryozoa (Schoener and Rowe, 1971), and
also on macrolnfauna, Including foramlnlfera, Isopods, tanalds,
amphlpods, polychaetes, bivalves, gastropods, and echlnoderms (Schoener
and Rowe, 1970; LHvlnova and Sokolova, 1971). Essentially nothing 1s
known of Its growth or physiology, although developmental stages from
shortly after recruitment to adulthood have been described (Schoener,
1966). In terms of ecological roles, A. bullata Is fed upon by rattalls,
probably Including C. armatus (Tyler, 1980), and thus provides a
food-chain link between the pelagial and benthos. It may also play a
significant role as a "cropper" and 1n the dispersal of concentrated
algal-fall energy to the general benthos (Tyler, 1980).
Thus, A. bullata could contribute to the fulfullment of
"representative-organism" requirements by enhancing the taxonomlc and
trophic diversity, and bentho-pelaglc links of monltorable species. It
also could play a keystone ecological role as an Infaunal cropper.
4. Oph1omus1um armlgerum. This small ophiuriod 1s distributed
broadly 1n the North and South Atlantic Oceans (Mortensen, 1933;
Schoener, 1969) at depths from 1580 to at least 4900 m (Schoener, 1969;
Haedrlch et al., 1980). As an adult, this species seems to be relatively
sessile, positioning Itself with arms 1n the sediment and disk raised
1-2 cm above the bottom Interface (Carney, 1983). 0. armlgerum's
fecundity, developmental type, and larval dispersal abilities seem to be
unknown. Carney (1983) suggests that this species Is a deposit feeder
and scavenger, based on gut content analyses and analogy with congeners.
Only a few aspects of 0. armlgerum's ecology are known, Including the
fact that 1t hosts an external gastropod parasite (Waren and Carney.
1981). The post-larval development of this species has also been
described by Schoener (1969). 0. armlgerum fulfills the
"representative-organism" requirements 1n ways comparable to A. bullata.
5. Molpadla blakel. Holothurolds 1n the genus Molpadla are widely
distributed 1n the world ocean from shallow to abyssal depths (Clarke,
1907; Rhoads and Young, 1971; Carney, 1983). Molpadiids typically are
Infaunal, conveyor-belt deposit feeders (Rhoads and Young, 1971; Massln,
1982), and thus are relatively Immobile as adults. Apparently very
little 1s known of the reproductive biology of deep-sea molpadUds, so
nothing can be said concerning larval dispersal abilities or fecundity.
As conveyor-belt feeders, molpadllds may Ingest subsurface sediments at
high rates and form fecal mounds at the sediment-water interface (Rhoads
39
-------
and Young, 1971; Carney, 1981); molpadiids may thus be Important sources
of infaunal disturbance (cf. Grassle and Sanders, 1973; Rex, 1983) and
deep sediment mixing In abyssal ecosystems. In particular, they may
determine mixed-layer thickness, stirring sediments to depths of 10-20 cm
(Rhoads and Young, 1971; Carney, 1983).
Molpadia blakei, or other molpadlid holothuroids, would help to
fulfill "representative-organism" requirements by increasing the
microhabitat and trophic diversity (infaunal deposit feeders) of
monitored organisms. As a potentially important source of bioturbation
and Infaunal disturbance, M. blakei may also fulfill the role of a
keystone species, making it desirable to monitor from a community-effects
point of view.
6. Eurythenes gryllus. This large (up to 14 cm (Ingram and
Hessler, 1983)) mobile amphipod is attracted to bait at bathyal and
abyssal depths in virtually all oceans (Hargrave, 1985). In abyssal
areas, it may be drawn to carrion in very large numbers (hundreds) over
time scales of hours (Thurston, 1979; Ingram and Hessler, 1983; Smith and
Baldwin, 1984). Its recorded depth of occurrence ranges from surface
waters in the Arctic (B. Hargrave, unpublished data presented at the
Deep-Sea Biology Symposium, Hamburg, FRG, 1985) to approximately 7200 m
1n the Aleutian Trench (C. Ingram, personal communication). E. gryllus
has also been collected at altitudes of 1400 m above the seafloor (in a
water column of 5800 m), although peak catch rates typically occur at
heights of 2-30 m (Ingram and Hessler, 1983; Smith and Baldwin, 1984).
As do all peracarlds, this species broods its young (Barnes, 1974), so
the rapid swimming abilities of post-larval stages (>8 cm/s; Laver et
al., in press) account for its high dispersal capabilities.
E. gryllus 1s a voracious necrophage, consuming a carrion ration of
30-60% of Its body weight within about 30 min of arrival at bait
(Hargrave, 1985). Gut content analyses suggest that 1t may feed
primarily on fish and squid flesh (C. Ingram and R. Hessler, unpublished
data presented at the Deep-Sea Biology Symposium, Hamburg, FRG, 1985).
The gut storage capacity of L_ gryllus 1s specifically adapted to
maximally exploit windfalls of carrion (Dahl, 1979). Feeding and
respiration studies Indicate that E. gryllus may be able to persist for
41-555 days on the energy obtained from one meal (B. Hargrave,
unpublished data presented at the Deep-Sea Biology Symposium, Hamburg,
FRG, 1985). Both chemo- and mechanoreception have been Implicated In
homing to bait in E. gryllus (Ingram and Hessler, 1983; Smith and
Baldwin, 1984), and it appears that these amphipods exploit the
hydrodynamlc structure of the benthlc boundary layer, hovering tens of
meters into the water column to obtain a chemosensory overview of the
seafloor (Jumars and Gallagher, 1982; Ingram and Hessler, 1983); Ingram
and Hessler (1983) have thus assigned E. gryllus to a "pelagic guild."
It has also been suggested that individuals of E. grvllus occurring high
40
-------
above the ocean bottom (hundreds of meters) are feeding as predators on
mldwater organisms (Ingram and Hessler, 1983; Smith and Baldwin, 1984).
The growth rates and population densities of E. gryllus are unknown,
so the Importance of this species 1n the energetics of abyssal
communities cannot be estimated. Methods of population assessment, using
mark-and-capture techniques (Smith and Present, 1982) and bloacoustlcs
(K.L. Smith, personal communication), are currently under Investigation.
In addition, aspects of the animal's physiology and behavior are also
being studied under laboratory conditions 1n the Arctic (B. Hargrave,
unpublished communication at the Deep-Sea Biology Symposium, Hamburg,
FRG, 1985).
Eurythenes gryllus very likely plays a number of significant roles
in the function of deep-sea communities. In most abyssal areas, 1t is a
major dlsperser of carrion-fall energy; this could be an important
pathway for organic carbon flux to the general benthos (Stockton and
DeLaca, 1982; Smith, 1985). In addition, this amphipod may be an
Important link between benthic and pelagic ecosystems. It is a
significant prey Item for high ranging rattalls such as Coryphaenoides
armatus and C. yaquinae (Stein, 1985; Ingram and Hessler, unpublished
data presented at the Deep-Sea Biology Symposium, Hamburg, FRG, 1985).
It also migrates high Into the water column itself, and there 1s evidence
that its remains may float to surface waters from abyssal depths (Yayanos
and Nevenzel, 1978). E. gryllus must thus be considered a potentially
important dispersal agent of materials reaching the ocean floor. Its role
1n the spread of LLRW from canister is likely to be particularly
significant 1f radiation or chemical toxldty causes mortality of
benthos, providing a contaminated food source for this mobile
necrophage.
In conclusion, E. gryllus is a highly desirable species to monitor
from transport and ecological-Impact points of view because (1) it is a
dominant component of the abyssal scavenging fauna; (2) 1t is
horizontally and vertically very mobile, providing potentially important
transfer links between benthic and pelagic (including surface-water)
ecosystems; (3) 1t is a likely dlsperser of radionuclides, particularly
1n the worst-case scenario of mortality of benthos due to radiotoxicity;
and (4) it may play keystone roles in abyssal communities, so that
negative Impacts to this species may be felt in other components of the
community. Because of Its emergence Into shallow water in Arctic
regions, 1t may serve as an excellent "guinea pig" for laboratory studies
of the radiation physiology of deep-sea organisms.
7. Paralicella caperesca. This necrophagous lysianassid 1s
somewhat different ecologically from E. gryllus. being more or less
typical of the several species 1n Ingram and Hessler's (1983) "demersal
guild" of scavenging amphlpods. P. caperesca attains a size of about
41
-------
2 cm, and again is quite mobile, swimming at speeds of 2-3 cm/sec. It is
broadly distributed throughout the abyssal Atlantic and Pacific Oceans
(Thurston, 1979; Ingram and Messier, 1983; C. Ingram, unpublished data),
with a depth range of 2700-6000 m (C. Ingram, personal communication).
P. caperesca may range up to 900 m above the seafloor (Ingram and
Hessler, 1983), although it is primarily restricted to within one meter
of the ocean bottom. This species is a voracious carrion feeder (Oahl,
1979; Thurston, 1979), but also ingests benthic infauna and sediment
(Smith and Baldwin, 1982; C. Ingram, personal communication). Between
bouts of necrophagy, P. caperesca typically appears to occur on or in the
sediment (Smith and Baldwin, 1982) in an aggregated dispersion pattern
(Ingram and Hessler, 1983). This lysianassid is apparently semelparous
(reproduces only once), with a fecundity of about 90 (Thurston, 1979).
P. caperesca may play a significant role in the economy of the
abyssal benthos. Respiratory measurements and rough population estimates
at 3650 m in the Atlantic indicate that this amphipod (or its ecological
equivalents) may account for a sizable proportion, up to 10%, of benthic
community respiration (Smith and White, 1982). In addition, this species
consumes much of the biomass of carrion falls reaching the seafloor
(Shulenberger and Hessler, 1974; Thurston, 1979; Ingram and Hessler,
1983); a significant amount of organic carbon may thus cycle through
these organisms to the benthos (Stockton and DeLaca, 1982; Smith, 1985).
Finally, P. caperesca probably also serves as prey for rattails (Feller
et al., 1985; Stein, 1985).
In conclusion, P. caperesca is a highly desirable species to monitor
for essentially the same reasons as Eurythenes gryllus. Additionally, it
may provide a stronger bentho-pelagic transfer link because of its direct
feeding on benthos and sediment.
Northeast Pacific
Megafaunal community composition. The most extensive megafaunal
data sets for depths below 4000 m in the NE Pacific exist for two areas:
(1) Area W-N is a site 290 km west of Cape Mendicino, California. This
site is about 10,OQO km2 in area and is roughly centered on the
coordinates 39 20'N, 127 35' W, ranging in depth from 4100-4350 m
(Marietta, 1984). It is being investigated for suitability for seabed
disposal of LLRW by the Low-Level Waste Ocean Disposal Program of Sandia
National Laboratories. (2) Some megafaunal data are also available for
the Tufts Abyssal Plain at sites ranging from 400 to 2200 km due west of
Oregon and spanning depths of 3940 to 5180 m (Pearcy et al., 1982; Carney
and Carey, 1982).
Studies of megafaunal community zonation on the Tufts Abyssal Plain
yield somewhat disparate patterns for the ichthyofauna and holothuroids.
Pearcy et al. (1982) found that the primary fish species occurring below
42
-------
4000 m were also present In water as shallow as 3100 m; the abyssal
assemblage thus comprised a subset of shallower species lists. Carney
and Carey (1982), however, found dissimilar assemblages of holothurolds
between 3700 m and 3940 m, apparently resulting from species turnover;
there 1s thus some evidence of a "faunal break" for some taxa around
3800 m. Both studies Indicated exponential blomass decreases with depth,
yielding abyssal standing crops <10% of those at 2000-3000 m.
There Is evidence that seven megafaunal species may be trawlable 1n
high enough quantities (100 g wet weight per sample) at abyssal depths 1n
the NE Pacific to meet the previously mentioned radioanalytical
requirements. Treating the ichthyofauna first, two species dominate
trawl samples in area W-N -- the rattails Coryphaenoides armatus and
C_._ yaquinae. Using the techniques of Stein (1985), C^ armatus appears
collectable at a rate of about 1200 g/h, while 600-1200 g of C_._ yaquinae
can be trawled per hour (Stein, 1985). On the Tufts Abyssal Plain,
Pearcy et al. (1982) could have collected roughly 10 kg/h of
"C. armatus" using Stein's methods; Pearcy et al.'s (1982) "C. armatus"
1s actually likely to be a combination of C_._ armatus and C_^ yaquinae
(Wilson and Waples, 1983). It appears that below 4300-m depths, trawl
samples in the Pacific will be increasingly dominated by C. yaquinae.
Only qualitative trawl results (Carey, 1984) and photosurvey data
(Keller, 1984) are available for invertebrate megafauna from area W-N.
These data indicate that the dominant megafaunal species include: the
ophluroid Ophiura bathybia. the brisingid asteroid Freyella sp., the
elasipod holothuroids Psychropotes cf. longicauda and Oneirophanta cf.
mutabilis, and the asteroid Dytaster gilberti. Based on analogy with
other seemingly comparable abyssal environments (Haedrich et al., 1980;
Sibuet et al., 1984; Laubier and Segonzac, 1984), the trawlable blomasses
of most or all of these species are likely to exceed our 100-g sampling
requirements. On the Tufts Abyssal Plain, the available data allow us
only to say that the dominant invertebrate species should include
ophiuroids and holothurolds (Carney and Carey, 1982).
Necrophages trappable in 100-g quantities in the abyssal NE Pacific
are fairly comparable to those collectable in the NW Atlantic. The
scavenging Ichthyofauna is dominated by C. armatus and C. yaquinae
(Wilson and Waples, 1983; C. Ingram and R. Wilson, personal
communications). Invertebrates in baited traps from abyssal depths on
the Tufts Abyssal Plain (Ingram and Hessler, 1983), and probably all
along the Pacific margin of the United States, should be dominated by the
lysianassids Eurythenes gryllus, Orchomene gerulicorbis. and possibly,
Para 11 eel-la cap_er^ic_a (Ingram and Hessler, 1983; C. Ingram, unpublished
data). All or most of these species are likely trappable in quantities
exceeding 100-g wet weight.
In summary, a very limited data base suggests that seven, and
possibly eight, megafaunal species (C_._ armatus, C^ yaquinae. Ophiura
43
-------
bathybia, Freye.l.la sp., Psychropotes cf. longicauda Onelrophanta c_f_._
mutabills, Dytaster gllbertl. L_ fl£y_Uus.. 0^ gerullcorbis. and P^
caperesca) may be collectable 1n 100-g quantities at abyssal depths off
northern California and Oregon. These results may be generallzable to
the entire U.S. Pacific margin, although there are Insufficient data to
warrant such a conclusion. In addition, the caveats mentioned 1n
relation to megafaunal data from the NW Atlantic also hold In the
Pacific. Nonetheless, we will discuss the ecology of these species
because our best estimate suggests that they are the most likely
organisms to meet the radioanalytical sampling requirements In at least
some areas of the NW Pacific.
Ecology of dominant megafaunal species. The ecology of the likely
megafaunal dominants at abyssal depths In the NE Pacific Ocean Is
discussed below.
1. Coryphaenoldes armatus. The ecology of this species has been
discussed above 1n the treatment of NW Atlantic species (page 36).
2. Coryphaenoldes yaqulnae. The morphology and ecology of this
species are very similar to those of C. armatus. discussed above. We
will only touch on those aspects of the ecology of C. yaqulnae which
differ from that of C. armatus.
After benthlc recruitment, C_._ yaqulnae may be found at depths
ranging from 3400 to 5800 m. It appears to be restricted to the North
Pacific Ocean (Wilson and Waples, 1983). This species apparently is more
of a benthlc feeder than C_._ armatus. concentrating on polychaetes and
amphlpods; pelagic fish are Included 1n the diet of larger Individuals,
however (Stein, 1985).
3. Ophlura bathybia. This moderately sized ophlurold (disk
diameter up to 15 mm) 1s distributed throughout the northwest North
Pacific below 2000 m (Djakanov, 1967). Deep-sea members of the genus
Ophlura typically are omnivorous, feeding on Infaunal organisms and
detritus (Tyler, 1980); 0. bathybia probably is no exception. This genus
contains deep-sea species with both planktonlc larval dispersal and
direct development (Tyler, 1980), so we can make no Inferences regarding
0. bathybla's larval ecology. In terms of community significance, this
ophlurold may play key roles 1n "cropping" Infauna (Dayton and Messier,
1972) and mixing sediments, because members of this genus burrow (C.
Smith, unpublished data); It may also be an Important food Item for
rattaHs. It 1s thus a desirable organism to monitor from dispersal and
1n-s1tu Impact points of view.
4. Freyella sp. The Brlslngldae, which Includes the genus
Freyella. 1s a poorly studied family of asteroids restricted to the deep
sea (Marshall, 1979). Species 1n the genus Freyella attain large sizes
44
-------
(up to 40 cm across) (Marshall, 1979; Keller, 1984). Typically,
brislngids rest on the sediment surface, or on objects providing some
elevation (e.g., glass sponges, glacial erratics), with their numerous
arms (6 to 10 in the Freyella spp. in area W-N (Keller, 1984)) projecting
into the water column (Pawson, 1976; Keller, 1984; C. Smith, personal
observations). Because of their arm orientations, brisingids are
inferred to be suspension feeders (Pawson, 1976; Jangoux, 1982); gut
content analyses suggest that some may also be infaunal predators or
deposit feeders (Jangoux, 1982).
Brisingids help to fulfill "representative-organism" requirements by
providing taxonomic and trophic diversity. As suspension feeders, they
constitute an unusual abyssal feeding type (Jumars and Gallagher, 1982)
and provide an inverse link in bentho-pelagic coupling. Based on their
common occurrence on elevated objects, they are also likely colonists of
waste canisters on the abyssal seafloor.
5. Dytaster gilberti. This is a large astropectlnid asteroid that
buries itself in the sediment, leaving star-shaped traces (Keller,
1984). The astropectinids are primarily a deep-sea group, and their
ecology is poorly understood (Marshall, 1979). One member of this genus
(D. insignis) has high fecundity (1 million) and small egg size (120 urn
diameter), suggesting indirect development and planktonic dispersal
(Lawrence, 1981). Gut content analyses demonstrate that several species
of Dytaster feed on infauna and epifauna (echinoids, ophiuroids,
crustaceans, bivalves, sponges), as well as on carrion and sediment
(Jangoux, 1982).
These asteroids may thus play important community roles as
"croppers" (sensu Dayton and Hessler, 1972) and bioturbators. As a
vertical burrower, Dytaster is also likely to contribute significantly to
(1) infaunal disturbance and (2) environmental heterogeneity on the
seafloor. Both processes may be important in maintaining infaunal
community structure in deep-sea benthos (Jumars and Gallagher, 1982; Rex,
1983; Jumars and Ekman, 1983). Their larval dispersal may also
contribute to bentho-pelagic coupling. This species may thus fulfill a
number of requirements for organisms representative of transfer links and
worst-case in situ effects, and hence is a desirable species to monitor.
6. Psychropotes longicauda. This large (up to 26 cm long) elasipod
holothuroid is cosmopolitan at depths from 2210-5173 m (Hansen, 1975).
It moves slowly along the sediment surface (Hansen, 1975), but members of
this genus have also been reported to swim a few meters off the bottom as
adults (Pawson, 1976). Hansen (1975) suggests that P. longicauda has a
planktonic dispersal stage, but the unusually large size of the eggs
(44 mm in diameter; the largest known in echinoderms (Hansen, 1975)) may
be indicative of direct development (cf. Schoener, 1972). This species
is a selective surface-deposit feeder (Sibuet, 1984). Sibuet and
45
-------
Lawrence (1981) found that the organic composition of f\ longlcauda 1s
similar to that of a number of abundant shallow-water holothuroids. In
some abyssal communities (e.g., in the Bay of Biscay), LL°_03lca_uda may
comprise up to one-sixth of total benthic biomass (Sibuet and Lawrence,
1981).
This holothuroid may thus play an important role in community
processes, figuring significantly in bioturbation, infaunal "cropping,"
and community respiration in the abyss. Its low fecundity may make it an
especially radiosensitive species. It thus would be an important species
to monitor, from an ecological impact point of view, in abyssal
assemblages similar to that at area W-N.
7. Oneirophanta mutabilis. This moderately sized (up to 10 cm)
elasipod holothuroid appears to be cosmopolitan at depths from 3200-
6000 m (Hansen, 1975). It is presumed to move along the sediment surface
(Hansen, 1975; Keller, 1975) selectively ingesting sediments (Hansen,
1975; Sibuet, 1984). 0. mutabilis is an intraovarian brooder, with a
fecundity of 8 (Hansen, 1975). It thus appears to have no planktonic
dispersal stage. Other aspects of this species' ecology, as well as its
role in community processes, are not well known.
Oneirophanta fulfills many of the requirements (low mobility and
fecundity, deposit feeder, community dominant) for organisms likely to
represent the worst-case effects of radlonucUde contamination. It thus
would be a desirable organism to monitor.
8. Eurythenes gryllus. The ecology of this species is discussed
above in relation to NW Atlantic megafauna.
9. Paralicella caperesca. The ecology of this species Is discussed
above in the context of NW Atlantic megafauna.
10. Orchomene gerullcorbis. This necrophagous amphipod is abundant
at abyssal depths throughout the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (Thurston,
1979; Ingram and Hessler, 1983; Ingram and Hessler, 1984; C. Ingram,
unpublished data). As a member of Ingram and Hessler's "demersal guild,"
its ecology appears to be generally comparable to that of Parallcella
caperesca (Thurston. 1979; Dahl, 1979; Ingram and Hessler, 1983). It 1s
thus a desirable species to monitor for the same reasons as F^
caperesca.
Summary
In the NW Atlantic, trawl and baited-trap sampling of dominant
megafaunal organisms seems likely to yield a set of species generally
meeting requirements for organisms representative of both transport
pathways and worst-case impacts. Specifically, sampled organisms are very
likely to include:
46
-------
1. Community biomass dominants Coryphaenoides armatus.
Parapagurus pilosimanus.
2. Dominant consumers (based on resplrometry) and, possibly,
producers -- £_._ armatus. Parallcella caperesca.
3. Species that are highly mobile 1n horizontal and vertical
directions C_^_ armatus. Eurythenes gryllus. P^ caperesca.
4. Potentially important bentho-pelaglc couplers £_._ armatus,
E_._ gryllus. £_._ pilosimanus. P_^ caperesca.
5. Species potentially playing keystone roles 1n a number of
community processes, such as Infaunal cropping (C. armatus.
Amphiophiura bullata. Ophiumusium armigerum). food-fall
dispersal (C. armatus. E. gryllus. P. caperesca, the
ophiuroids), and bioturbatipn and Infaunal disturbance (Molpadia
blakei, P. pilosimanus. the ophiuroids).
6. Animals from a diversity of taxa (Osteichthyes, Decapoda,
Amphipoda, Ophiuroidea, Holothuroldea), trophic types
(necrophages, predators, deposit feeders), and microhabitats
(bentho-pelagic, epibenthic, Infaunal).
7. Species of potential importance to man -- C_._ armatus.
In aggregate, these species essentially fulfill the requirements for
organisms of Importance to monitor from a radionuclide-transfer point of
view.
Collectable megafauna from the NE Atlantic that may reflect the
worst-case impacts of radionuclide contamination include:
1. Keystone species (see those listed above).
2. Species likely to show relatively high radiosensitivlty -- the
fish C. armatus.
3. Deposit feeders with low mobility (and fecundity?) M^ blakei.
Ophiomusium armigerum.
The most glaring deficiency in meeting the "representative-organism"
requirements with NW Atlantic megafauna is the apparent absence of a
suspension feeder collectable in >100-g quantities. Suspension feeders
are of particular interest because (a) they have been shown to
concentrate radionuclides from suspended sediments, and (b) they are
likely colonists of waste canisters (see discussions of past monitoring
programs).
47
-------
In the NE Pacific, the weak data base suggests that the dominant
megafaunal species collectable by trawls and baited traps are likely to
meet the "representative-organism" requirements for organisms
representative of both transport pathways and worst-case Impacts.
Sampled megafauna appear likely to Include:
1. Community blomass dominants -- C^ armatus, Coryphaenoldes
yaqulnae. Ophlura bathybla, Psychropotes longlcauda.
2. Species with high horizontal and vertical mobility -- the
rattalls, the scavenging amphlpods, P^ longlcauda.
3. Organisms potentially playing keystone roles In community
processes, Including Infaunal cropping (the rattalls,
0. bathybla. the holothurolds), food-fall dispersal (rattalls,
scavenging amphlpods), and bloturbatlon and Infaunal disturbance
(the holothurolds, Dytaster gllbertl).
4. Species from a broad range of high-level taxa (Ostelchthyes,
Amphlpoda, Ophluroldea, Holothuroldea, Asteroldea), trophic
types (necrophages, deposit feeders, suspension feeders,
predators), and mlcrohabltats (bentho-pelaglc, eplbenthlc,
partially Infaunal).
5. Species of potential Importance to man -- the rattalls.
In addition, by analogy with the Atlantic abyss, several of these
megafaunal dominants (e.g., the rattalls, demersal-guild scavenging
amphlpods) are likely to be major consumers, and possibly major producers
of blomass In the NE Pacific abyss. Thus, In aggregate, the collectable
megafaunal species In the NE Pacific also appear to fulfill the
requirements for organisms of Importance to monitor from a
nucllde-transfer point of view.
Megafauna are also collectable from the NE Pacific which are likely
to fulfill requirements for organisms representative of the worst-case
Impacts of nucllde contamination. These Include:
1. The potential keystone species mentioned above.
2. Organisms with presumed high radlosensltlvHy -- the fish
C_._ armatus and C_^ yaqulnae.
3. Deposit feeders with relatively low mobilities and fecundities
P. longlcauda and Qnelrophanta mutab111s.
Thus, for both the abyssal NW Atlantic and the NE Pacific, the best
available data suggest that most or all "representative-organism"
48
-------
requirements may be met by trawling and trapping dominant megafaunal
species. There 1s some cause for optimism In considering the
mon1torab111ty of radlonucllde contamination of disposal sites. The
possibility of extreme variability 1n megafaunal community composition on
spatial scales of hundreds of km (see references above) must temper this
optimism, however, pending baseline surveys of actual waste disposal
sites.
There 1s some evidence that two species of abyssal megafauna
(Parapagurus plloslmanus and Eurythenes gryllus) can survive at
atmospheric pressure, provided they are collected from shallow (I.e.,
non-abyssal) depths. While 1t 1s perhaps worthwhile to investigate the
effects of radiation on these species in the laboratory, there 1s little
cause to believe that laboratory or mesocosm studies will shed much light
on radiosensitivlty or nuclide transport processes in abyssal benthos.
The vast majority of species occurring below 4000 m do not range above
2000 m (e.g., Messier, 1974; also see previous discussion of the "Ecology
of Dominant Megafaunal Species"); if maintained at atmospheric pressure,
such organisms would be severely stressed physiologically (Somero et al.,
1982). Any measures of radiosensitivity or nuclide uptake in these
stressed (or dying) animals would be highly equivocal. In addition,
measurements on abyssal species that do survive in the laboratory (e.g.,
P^ pilosimanus or E_._ gryllus) would probably say little regarding
radiosensitivlty of typical abyssal species. These species with
exceptionally broad bathymetrlc ranges undoubtably have remarkably robust
physiologies, and are liable to be less sensitive to radiation stress
than many abyssal benthos. Thus, we feel laboratory, or mesocosm,
programs conducted at atmospheric pressure would prove of very little
utility in evaluating radiation Impacts or nuclide transfer processes
following disposal of radioactive wastes at the abyssal seafloor.
Studies of undecompressed organisms held at abyssal pressures probably
would be quite useful, but at this point such high-pressure studies are
exceedingly difficult due to technological limitations.
LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING -- WASTE CANISTER VICINITY
Monitoring of the local environmental conditions around waste
canisters should have three goals:
1. Assessment of worst-case radionuclide contamination of biota and
the abiotic environment;
2. Identification and possibly evaluation of major radionuclide
transfer processes; and
3. Determination of the ecological impact of disposal activities.
Attainment of each of these goals will require the collection of
time-series data from precise locations around specific canisters on the
49
-------
deep-sea floor. This will necessitate the use of a submersible or a
highly sophisticated remotely operated vehicle (ROV).
For assessing worst-case radlonucllde contamination, organisms
should be collected directly from canisters (e.g., colonizing suspension
feeders, such as br1s1ng1d asteroids, sponges, anemones, etc.) and from
adjacent sediments. Three to 15 g of wet tissue likely will be required
for radloanalysls; this probably will restrict worst-case assessment to
megafaunal species. Infaunal opportunists responding to "disturbance"
around canisters conceivably could, however, yield adequate macrofaunal
blomass for radlonanalyses (cf. Desbruyeres et al., 1980).
The collection of megafauna on and around canisters, without the
recovery of canisters themselves, will require submersible (or possibly,
ROV) deployed scoop nets and/or slurp guns (cf. Smith and White, 1982).
Infaunal sampling will require submersible or ROV collection of sediment
cores. Maximally sized cores (> 400 cm2 sample area) should be used
because of low Infaunal densities 1n the abyss (e.g., Jumars and
Gallagher, 1982).
For assessing worst-case environmental radlonucllde contamination,
1t will be necessary to collect sediment at various distances (e.g., 0-20
m) from waste containers. Such monitoring will again require a
submersible or ROV. Sampling strategies for sediment contamination
studies are best designed by geochemlsts (cf. Bowen and HolHster, 1981).
To evaluate radlonucllde transfer around waste canisters, you must
consider the biological process of bloturbatlon. B1oturbat1on, or mixing
of sediments by organisms, results primarily from the 1ngest1on and
egestlon of sediment by deposit feeders (Thayer, 1983). Bloturbatlon
will largely determine the rates of vertical and horizontal movements of
sediment-bound nuclldes 1n quiescent abyssal habitats. Rates of vertical
mixing are probably best determined a priori by measuring the
distribution of naturally occurring radlolsotopes 1n remotely collected
core samples (e.g., Cochran, 1982; Aller and OeMaster, 1984). Rates of
horizontal bloturbatlon are also relevant to waste-nucllde transfer, but
also are more difficult to measure than vertical mixing rates.
Horizontal mixing 1s probably best addressed experimentally, for example,
by placement of Inert tracer particles in the sediment, followed by
time-series sampling (time scales of weeks to years) of sediments around
the treatment sites. Such an experimental program would require either a
sub or a ROV.
Conclusions concerning the relative importance of physical,
chemical, and biological processes 1n waste-nucllde transfer will be
dependent on the synthesis of physical, chemical, and biological data
sets (e.g., Information regarding near-bottom flow conditions, shape of
bedform structures, sediment redox conditions, etc.). Again, physical
50
-------
and chemical data requirements are best specified with Input from
physical and chemical oceanographers.
To determine the ecological Impact of disposal activities, you must
consider two mlcrohabltats: (1) the surfaces of waste canisters, which
provide elevated substrates for colonization by suspension feeders, and
(2) the sediments surrounding canisters, which may be affected by
radlonuclides, heavy-metal poisoning, organic enrichment, and a variety
of hydrodynamic effects (altered particle and chemical fluxes, current
scour, etc.)- Ecological effects are best addressed by looking at
changes in community composition. Physiological changes that do not
result 1n altered population recruitment or mortality rates cannot be
fruitfully addressed, given present understanding of the biology of
deep-sea organisms (cf. Jumars, 1981; Somero et al., 1983).
Canister colonization rates and patterns are best addressed in three
ways:
(1) The first approach 1s container recovery following deployment
on the seafloor for specified periods of time. This probably
1s best achieved through controlled (e.g., free-vehicle)
deployment and recovery of mock canisters; i.e., typical
"waste" drums without radlonuclides added. Results from mock
canisters could also be used as control data to determine
whether the presence of waste nuclides affects colonization.
Because only well attached fauna will remain on containers
during recovery, two in situ data collection approaches are
also desirable.
(2) Close-up stereophotogrammetry of the surface of canisters can
be used to identify and measure organisms in macrofaunal
through megafaunal size categories (cf. Lundalv, 1971).
Stereophotogrammetric data will be especially useful 1n
determining production rates and successional sequences of the
canister fauna.
(3) Finally, submersible or ROV deployed scoop nets and slurp guns
should be used to collect large megafauna for positive
Identification and analyses of radionuclide levels,
reproductive condition, etc.
The latter two In situ techniques are obviously the methods of choice for
"live" waste containers, because canister recovery is, in general,
desirable only on a selective basis for verification of waste-package
performance.
51
-------
A submersible or sophisticated ROV will also be needed to study the
effects of LLRW canisters on the surrounding, soft-bottom benthos.
Photographic surveys should be conducted around canisters to determine
any changes in megafaunal composition or sediment microtopography (cf.
Smith, 1985). Stereophotographs, capable of resolving structures as
small as 2-3 mm in diameter, would be highly desirable in this context.
In addition, sediment-core samples for infauna will be required to assess
the effects of waste disposal on the bulk of biotic diversity in the
abyss. Cores at least 400 cm^ in the sample area might profitably be
taken at distances of 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, and 20 m from the canisters.
Samples should be sorted for macrofauna (>300 urn) and identified (or at
least differentiated) to the species level to determine alteration in
species abundances, as well as changes in community composition. Methods
of spatial autocorrelation (cf. Jumars, 1978; Smith and Hamilton, 1983)
and cluster analyses (Grassle and Smith, 1977; Boesch, 1977; Pielou,
1984) may be especially useful in this context (e.g., Smith, 1983,
Chapter 4). Waste-canister effects on meiofauna (63-300 urn) should also
be addressed through in situ subsampling of core samples (cf. Thistle,
1983; Snider et a!., 1984). Taxonomic problems with this size fraction,
however, may limit identification and analyses to higher taxonomic
levels (cf. Snider et al., 1984). In addition, concomitant collection of
radionuclide and chemical data (e.g., heavy-metal burdens, organic carbon
content, oxygen levels) for sediments would be very desirable, because
these data would help to elucidate the causes of sediment-community
change.
In conclusion, local environmental monitoring around canisters
ideally would include (a) a predisposal experimental program Involving
remote and 1n situ studies of bloturbatlon and container-colonization
processes, and (b) post-disposal in situ monitoring of radionuclide
contamination and ecological Impacts. Remote experiments (e.g.,
addressing canister colonization by attached fauna) could be conducted
using free-vehicle techniques from surface vessels. In situ
experimentation and monitoring will require an abyssal-depth submersible
with manipulative capabilities similar to ALVIN or the JOHNSON SEALINK,
or a ROV with capabilities at least comparable to those of the RUM
(Jumars, 1978).
52
-------
Section VIII. BENTHIC BIOLOGICAL MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS
What follows are our recommendations concerning criteria and
strategies for benthlc biological monitoring of LLRW disposal sites 1n
the abyssal deep sea. Our recommendations are based primarily on a
synthesis of the material treated 1n previous sections, although some new
considerations (particularly sampling requirements) are discussed below.
BASELINE MONITORING
Recommended programs for characterizing the benthlc biology of
abyssal disposal sites are outlined below. Each program description 1s
accompanied by a very rough cost estimate. Costs of shiptlme have not
been Included 1n these estimates because charge rates are highly
variable, and requirements for shiptlme depend strongly on the location
of the study site and the 1nterd1g1tat1ng of oceanographlc programs.
Institutional overhead has also been omitted from cost estimates;
overhead charges typically range from 40-100% of the direct cost of a
grant or contract.
We regard each of the outlined baseline programs to be of roughly
comparable worth, when expected results are normalized to costs.
Completion of the recommended baseline programs, 1f conducted
synchronously, will require on the order of 5-6 years; disposal
activities and trend-assessment monitoring should be planned to begin
after this period.
1. General Environmental and Megafaunal Characterization
Recommended Program
Conduct bottom photosurveys at > 3 randomly located stations 1n the
260-km2 disposal area, and at > 2 random stations in the control area.
(If known gradients exist within the disposal area, stations might better
be situated In a stratified pattern (Cochran, 1963; Hurlbert, 1984).)
Additional survey stations should be Included at locations of unusual
topography (e.g., submarine channels, bases of seamounts), or at
locations within the general disposal area where waste dumping may be
expected to be especially intense. Photosurveys should be conducted with
a submersible, camera sled, or EPAULARD-type vehicle, if possible.
Surveys should cover at least 1000 m2 per station, and photographs
should resolve sediment structures and megafauna greater than 0.5 cm in
smallest dimension.
During analyses of photographs, major megafaunal species should be
identified (with aid of trawl material, see below), and standing crops
and dispersion patterns evaluated. Special attention should be given to
those megafaunal species potentially important 1n long distance transport
such as benthopelagic (swimming) holothuMans and rattails. Major
sediment features (e.g., animal tracks, biogenic mounds, current-scour
features) should also be classified and their abundances estimated.
53
-------
Similar photosurveys of 1-2 disposal-site stations and 1-2
control-area stations should be conducted every time the area is
monitored to obtain a time-series view of the qualitative nature of the
environment.
Discussion
Previous photographic studies of megafauna at abyssal depths
(summarized in Keller, 1984; C.R. Smith, unpublished data from the Panama
Basin) suggest that total areas of > 1000 m2 often are required to
reliably characterize megafaunal assemblages. Once a camera system is
deployed, it is relatively easy and inexpensive to collect large numbers
of photographs. It is thus desirable to photograph as large a total
area as possible (e.g., transects several km in length) and, if
necessary, subsample transects during the data analysis phase.
The approximate cost of 4-6 baseline photographic surveys is roughly
estimated as follows:
Equipment (camera gear, sled, or pogo frame) - $38,000 *
Materials and Supplies - 3,000
Personnel (2/3 person-years at $25,000/yr) - 17,000
*Leasing of a camera system, such as the EPAULARO or ALVIN, may alter
this cost considerably.
2. Identification of Major Megafaunal Species and Their Background
Radionuclide Levels
All of the programs listed below (programs A-D) should be conducted.
Recommended Program A
Occupy > 2 trawl stations at random locations in the disposal site,
and > 1 random trawl station(s) in the control area. At least two trawl
tows should be conducted at each station to provide an indication of
within-station variability. At each trawl station, > 100 g (wet weight)
of the 5-7 most abundant benthic and/or demersal megafaunal species
should be collected. These species should include, if at all possible:
At least one rattail (preferably £_._ armatus or C^_ yaquinae);
An omnivorous ophiuroid;
A benthic, or partially benthic, holothuroid; and
Organisms from at least two other taxonomic orders
(e.g., Asteroidea, Decapoda) including, if possible, a suspension
feeder).
These organisms should be (a) identified to species; (b) classified
according to size, life stage, reproductive condition, trophic type, and
54
-------
life position; (c) wet weighed to yield catch-rate data; and (d) analyzed
for background levels of Important waste radlonucHdes (e.g.,
Co60, SrgO, Cs137, Pu239 and 24°, and Am2/H). The number of
replicate radloanalyses per Individual organism, species, and trawl
sample should be specified by a radloecologlst. All additional
megafaunal material should also be Identified, classified, and weighed as
above.
The collection of adequate material probably will require 1-3 h of
trawling (bottom time) per sampled station, using the methods of Stein
(1985) (see "Selection of Representative Organisms" section, page 35).
This megafaunal trawling program should be repeated 1n opposite
season; I.e., 1n opposing extremes of seasonal particle flux (Deuser and
Ross, 1980) (e-9-, during April and September), for at least two years to
determine whether observed seasonallty In organic carbon flux (Deuser and
Ross, 1980; Deuser et al., 1981), natural radlonucUde flux (Bacon et
al., 1985), or sediment-community respiration (Smith and Baldwin, 1984)
correlate with changes In concentration factors. As radionucllde
accumulation may vary with nutritional state, life stage, and
reproductive condition (e.g., Pearcy and Vanderploeg, 1973; Whicker and
Shultz, 1982), such a correlation might be expected.
Discussion
There Is good evidence (Stein, 1985, and personal communication)
that the largest size classes of abyssal rattails. Including females in
reproductive condition, avoid bottom trawls smaller than the large
commercial gear used by Stein (1985). Since water-column excursions
(presumably more common in larger, pelagic-feeding individuals) and
reproduction may be important in the upward transfer of radlonuclides
from the seafloor, 1t is recommended that collection of large rattall
specimens be optimized through use of Stein's trawling techniques.
The approximate costs of the recommended baseline trawling effort
(Including seasonal sampling) are difficult to estimate because equipment
loss rates are unpredictable (Stein, 1985). Very rough costs are
estimated below (excluding radioanalysis):
Equipment (commercial-sized otter trawls, accessories) - $26,000 - $56,000
Materials and Supplies - 5,000
Personnel (sample collection, species IDs, etc.;
2.4 person years) - 60,000
For more precise details concerning cost estimates, contact Dr. David
Stein of Oregon State University.
55
-------
Recommended Program B
Deploy baited traps to capture the dominant scavenging amphipod
species at > 2 random sites in the disposal area and > 1 site in the
control area. Collect > 100 g (wet weight) of:
Eurythenes gryllus; and
The dominant "demersal-guild" species (sensu Ingram and Messier,
1983) or a combination of species.
This material should be identified to species and analyzed for
background levels of important waste radionuclides. Other trapped
scavengers should also be identified to the species level, for use in
food-chain analyses, etc. Collection of adequate material probably will
require (possibly multiple) trap sets of 48 h (C. Ingram, personal
communication), using the methods of Ingram and Messier (1983), with
traps set on the bottom and several meters above the bottom.
The amphipod trapping program should be repeated in opposite seasons
for at least two years (e.g., April and September) to analyze seasonality
in bioaccumulation patterns.
Discussion
The approximate costs of the baseline baited-trap sampling program
(excluding radioassay costs) are estimated as follows:
Equipment (traps and free-vehicle gear) - $10,000
Materials and Supplies - 4,000
Personnel (3/4 person-years) - 20,000
Recommended Program C
Bottom-water and sediment samples for radionuclide analysis should
also be collected at or near all trawl and trap stations to allow
calculation of concentration factors. Sampling strategies and costs are
more appropriately outlined by geochemists.
Recommended Program D
Free-vehicle, baited camera drops should be conducted at > 2
stations in both the disposal and control areas. Large parcels (> 20 kg)
of bait should be used, and cameras should be set up to allow resolution
of structures down to 0.5 cm in smallest dimension (cf. Dayton and
Messier, 1972; Isaacs and Schwartzlose, 1975; Smith, 1985). Vehicles
should be deployed on the seafloor for at least five days per station.
All species photographed should be identified to the lowest taxonomic
level possible, counted, and classified according to life stage, if
possible.
56
-------
Discussion
The purpose of balted-camera drops Is to Identify necrophagous
species too large to be collected 1n traps and mobile enough to evade
bottom trawls. In addition, such time-lapse photographs, when compared
with camera-survey data, will provide Information concerning dispersal
abilities of scavenging species (cf. Smith, 1985).
The approximate cost of four baited-camera drops is roughly
estimated as follows:
Equipment (camera system, free-vehicle gear) - $30,000
Materials and Supplies - 3,000
Personnel (1/4 person-year) - 8,500
3. Characterization of Infaunal Community Structure
Recommended Program
Collect 5 replicate, 0.25-m2, USNEL-type box-core samples at each
of 4 randomly located stations in the 260-km2 disposal area, and at
each of 2 randomly located stations in the control area. We recommend
that the vegematic modification (Jumars, 1975) be used to improve sample
recovery and to allow flexibility of data analysis. Size fractions of
Infaunal benthos should be treated as follows.
Macrofauna - The top 10 cm of cores should be processed through
300-um screens, using the techniques of Messier and Jumars (1974)
and Jumars (1975). All organisms should be identified, or at least
differentiated, to the species level to allow assessment of typical
levels and variability of community parameters (total abundance,
biomass, diversity, species composition, proportion of various
feeding types, etc. (cf. Hessler and Jumars, 1974)), through use of
statistical approaches discussed above ("Sampling and Monitoring
Techniques" section).
Meiofauna - Each box core should include two 10-cm2 in situ
subsamples (cf. Snider et al., 1984) for collection of meiofauna.
The top 6 cm of meiofaunal subsamples should be passed through a
300-um screen to remove macrofauna, and the material retained on a
42-um screen sorted as in Thiel (1983) and Snider et al. (1984).
Meiofauna should be identified to the lowest taxon reasonably
possible. Systematic difficulties often may make identification
below the class level unfeasible (cf. Snider et al., 1984).
Community parameters (total abundance, biomass or biovolume,
taxonomic composition, trophic structure) should be tabulated and
variations over space and time addressed, where possible.
57
-------
Microbiota (= nanoblota) - Assessment of this fauna! fraction is
probably not worth the required effort or expenditure until deep-sea
sampling and identification techniques are significantly improved
(see Thiel, 1983, for a description of early methods and results).
The identification of dominant species and assessment of the
diversity of microbenthos, as outlined in U.S. regulations, do not
appear feasible at this time.
For addressing seasonality, various stations should be reoccupied in
opposite seasons for at least two years following the initial survey. A
sampling design for seasonal studies is best determined following
feedback from the initial monitoring program. This will allow detection
limits and requisite sampling intensities to be determined more
reasonably.
Discussion
Selection of a sampling scheme to elucidate the structure of a
previously unstudied community must be somewhat arbitrary; the choice of
an infaunal sampling strategy for LLRW disposal sites is no exception.
Perhaps the most germane question in relation to sampling strategy
concerns the level of replication: How many replicate samples are
required to give a reasonable certainty (e.g., P>0.80) of detecting a
population impact, e.g., a reduction, of a certain magnitude? This
question can be addressed to some degree for the macrofauna.
Detection of single-species changes, given the low macrofaunal
densities of the abyss, is beyond the limits of a reasonable monitoring
effort; total irradication of a typical abyssal species (an unexpectedly
severe impact) probably would require > 50 box cores for its detection
(cf. Jumars, 1981). A more reasonable goal might be detection of
changes in total macrofaunal abundance at a station, or in the entire
disposal area. How many replicate box cores might be needed in an
abyssal LLRW disposal site to detect a change in macrofaunal density of
50%? In one of the DOMES study areas in the equatorial North Pacific
(Hecker and Paul, 1979), a sample size of 20 0.25-m2 cores would be
necessary to be quite certain (P>0.95) of detecting such a change
(Jumars, 1981).
We have calculated sample sizes required for roughly similar
detection power in three other abyssal communities: (1) a 150-km2 area
in the Climax II region of the Central North Pacific, a zone of sparse
fauna (Hessler and Jumars, 1974), and (2) two approximately 60-km2
sites on the Demerera Abyssal Plain, a region with a richer biota (Sibuet
et al., 1985) perhaps more typical of nearshore abyssal areas. Requisite
sample sizes are calculated based on the B-power test of Dixon and Massey
(1969), assuming normal distributions and homoscedasticity of macrofaunal
abundance within study regions. Despite four-fold variations in
58
-------
macrofaunal densities, all three sites yielded fairly similar results: a
sample size of 3-7 box cores yields a reasonable probability (P>0.80) of
detecting a 50% change 1n macrofaunal density (Table 3).
Based on the best available data, we thus have designed our baseline
sampling strategy as follows. A manageable 20 box cores In the disposal
area are divided among 4 randomly located stations, assuming no a priori
knowledge of environmental heterogeneity. (If known gradients or
discontinuities exist within the disposal area, these stations might be
better situated 1n a stratified pattern (Cochran, 1963; Hurlbert,
1984).) This level of sampling should yield a reasonable description of
the baseline Infaunal community (cf. Hessler and Jumars, 1974; Hecker and
Paul, 1979; Slbuet et al., 1984), and provides the potential for
addressing major changes 1n total macrofaunal abundance at each station
(Including control stations). Subsequent sampling programs to assess
disposal Impacts (I.e., trend assessments) are more Intelligently
designed with the results of baseline monitoring 1n hand. In fact, given
the paucity of abundance data for abyssal Infauna 1n general, the
baseline survey Itself could be more efficiently (and less arbitrarily)
designed following a small-scale pilot study (e.g., 3 to 5 box cores) at
a potential disposal site (cf., D1xon and Massey, 1969).
It should be noted that the above sampling strategy assumes the
desirability of determining changes over time ("trend assessment") at
particular sites 1n the disposal area, and It focuses on the ability to
detect changes 1n absolute abundance. If baseline characterization of
the area 1s the only goal, or If trends encompassing the entire disposal
site are the only ones of Interest, box-core samples should be
distributed differently. Given a presumably homogeneous disposal site
(and control area), the 20 box cores might best be deployed randomly
throughout the entire 260-km2 area (Cochran, 1963; Hurlbert, 1984). If
known gradients exist, a stratified random sampling program (Cochran,
1963; Hurlbert, 1984) 1s a more appropriate choice. Also, 1f one 1s
satisfied with detection of changes In relative (rather than absolute)
abundance, new classification and ordination techniques may allow such
detection with substantially fewer replicates than those outlined above
(see Smith and Bernstein's work 1n Ussner et al., 1985).
Published studies of meiofauna below 4000 m suggest that core
samples of 10 cm2, taken to a depth of 6 cm in the sediment, provide
adequate faunal numbers for community analysis (total numbers of 70-496
per sample (Thiel, 1983; Snider et al., 1984)); 1n addition, a 6-cm
sample depth appears adequate to collect the vast bulk of the meiofauna
(Snider et al., 1984).
Abyssal meiofauna have not been sampled adequately enough to even
crudely calculate the sampling intensity required to detect species or
community changes of a particular magnitude. We thus recommend two
59
-------
subsamples per box core, to allow determination of within- and
between-box-core variances. If these levels of variance are similar, and
within-core subsamples appear to be independent, it may be legitimate to
use within-core subsamples as station replicates (cf. Thistle, 1983;
Hurlbert, 1984), effectively increasing "sampling intensity" without an
increase in field sampling effort.
The cost of initial infaunal community characterization is roughly
estimated as follows:
Equipment (box corer and accessories, pinger, misc.) - $ 30,000
Materials and Supplies - 10,000
Personnel (sorting, species IDs, data analysis; 4.3
person-years) - 105,000
4. Elucidation of Site-Specific Food Webs
Recommended Program
Analyze, using microscopy and immunoassay techniques, the gut
contents of the dominant megafaunal species collected by trawls and
traps. Organisms studied should include the most abundant:
Rattail(s);
Ophiuroid(s);
Holothuroid(s), especially benthopelagic species;
Decapod, if present, especially Parapagurus pilosimanus;
Asteriod(s); and
Scavenging amphipods, especially Eurythenes gryllus.
Any additional benthic or demersal organisms exhibiting unusually
high levels of horizontal or vertical mobility should be included in this
analysis. Where possible, the feeding habits of various life stages
(e.g., juveniles,, adults, gravid females) should be addressed.
Discussion
Site-specific food-web structure, combined with concentration-factor
data, should help to highlight critical biological pathways linking the
sediment ecosystem with the water column. Important horizontal transport
pathways may also be elucidated through this analysis.
The costs of this program are very difficult to estimate without
knowledge of the availability of megafaunal organisms (number of species,
sample sizes) to be analyzed. Costs for equipment (immunoassay
apparatus, microscopes) and supplies (e.g., 50 taxon-spedfic antlsera)
are likely to be relatively modest (<$25,000), while personnel costs may
60
-------
be relatively high (>$100,000). The costs of sample collection are
considered 1n previous sections.
5. Experimental Studies of Colonization and B1oturbat1on On and Around
Waste Canisters
Recommended Program
Deploy > 5 mock canisters (I.e., typical waste containers lacking
waste radlonuclldes) as free-vehicle systems equipped with acoustic
transponders, to allow relocation on the seafloor by submersible or ROV.
(Alternatively, a pilot disposal program using a small number of "live"
canisters might be considered for these experimental studies.)
(a) Canister colonization patterns The Implanted canisters
should be monitored 1n situ, using close-up stereophoto-
grammetry from a submersible (or ROV) to address
macrofaunal-megafaunal colonization rates and patterns (see
discussion of "Local Environmental Monitoring - Waste Container
Vicinity"). If available, specimens of megafaunal and
macrofaunal colonists should be collected for radioanalysis and
to confirm species identifications. In view of the presumed
low biological rates of abyssal ecosystems, monitoring of
canisters at intervals of 2 to 5 years seems acceptable. After
5 years, several of these containers should be recovered
(either acoustically recalled, or freed from the seafloor by
submersible) for detailed Inspection of attached fauna (as well
as Inspection of corrosion damage, etc.).
(b) Horizontal and vertical bloturbation rates -- Shortly after
canister emplacement, a submersible (or ROV) should be used to
Implant Inert tracer particles in the vicinity of canisters.
Configurations of particle emplacement should Include patterns
to address vertical and horizontal sediment mixing. Sediment
coring of replicate particle sites 2 and 5 years later, I.e.,
during in situ monitoring of canisters, should allow estimation
of rates of vertical and horizontal sediment mixing (cf.
Guinasso and Schinck, 1975). In addition, the submersible
should collect sediment cores on sites where unusual rates and
patterns (e.g., depths) of bioturbation may be occurring (for
example, on sediment mounds and burrows (cf. R1ce, 1978, Smith
et al., 1n press)), as well as in the "background" sediments;
the distribution of naturally occurring radlonuclldes (e.g.,
Pb^lO) may then be used to address vertical bioturbation
rates (cf. Cochran, 1982).
(c) Canister Impact on the sediment community -- Time-series
monitoring of mock canisters will also allow assessment of
61
-------
waste-container effects on megabenthos and macrobenthos.
Sampling designs and intensities (survey photographic, core
sampling, etc.) are best determined following acquisition of
baseline data regarding faunal densities and boundary-layer
flow conditions. Canister vicinities should be sampled
immediately after emplacement, and also after intervals of 2
and 5 years on the seafloor.
Discussion
Such an in situ experimental program would provide useful
information regarding (a) waste canister Impacts and (b) the transfer of
waste nuclides adsorbed to sediment particles (a likely fate of many
waste isotopes (e.g., Dayal et al., 1979; Bowen and Hollister, 1981)).
This would allow a trend assessment program to be designed more
efficiently.
Available data on deep-sea rates were used in the selection of
monitoring times of 2 and 5 years. Studies of previous LLRW disposal in
the deep sea suggest that sediment-adsorbed nuclides move at horizontal
rates of decimeters per year due to bioturbation (Dyer, 1976; Schell and
Sugai, 1980; Bowen and Hollister, 1981). Studies of the colonization of
hard and soft substrates in deep-sea settings (Turner, 1973, 1977; Dyer,
1976; Grassle, 1977; Desbruyeres et al., 1980; Smith, 1983, 1986; Levin
and Smith, 1984) suggest that significant colonization of canisters, and
of impacted sediments, should occur on time scales of years; the infaunal
assemblage (assuming no change in disturbance type) may well be in an
advanced successional stage within 2-5 years (cf. Grassle, 1977; Smith,
1983, 1986; Levin and Smith, 1984). While abyssal colonization rates may
be lower, monitoring after 2 and 5 years seems likely to give some
indication of the ultimate "reef" and disturbance effects of waste
canisters. If nonequilibrium conditions are suspected (or, more
rigorously, if the nonequilibrium hypothesis cannot be rejected),
extension of the monitoring time series may well be warranted.
A rough estimate of the costs of such a program is as follows:
Equipment (acoustic transponders, free-vehicle gear,
stereocamera leasing) _ $ 48,000
Materials and Supplies - 10,000
Personnel (3-4 person-years) - $75,000-100,000
If this program were conducted at or above a depth of 4000 m,
allowing use of the ALVIN, sabmersible-time requirements would probably
be 6-8 dives per monitoring interval (i.e., at time=0 y, 2 y, and 5 y).
62
-------
TREND-ASSESSMENT MONITORING
The specific design of a trend-assessment monitoring program is best
determined with data from baseline monitoring in hand. We can, however,
make some recommendations concerning processes and parameters of likely
importance in trend assessment. Below, we discuss some topics worthy of
consideration.
1. Radionuclide Levels in Dominant Megafaunal Species
A trawling and trapping program, similar to the one recommended for
baseline studies, should be used to collect megafauna at various
intervals for radioanalysis. The program should include baited trap
collections of scavengers (amphipods and, perhaps, fish) directly within
the disposal site(s). It may be desirable to avoid trawling for
megafauna directly in the disposal area, both to prevent accidental
recovery of canisters and to avoid artificial redistribution (e.g.,
through sediment resuspension) of waste radionuclides (cf. Bowen and
Hollister, 1981). Trawling at locations immediately downcurrent of the
disposal area might thus be the most desirable. Alternatively, disposal
operations could be designed to leave an empty "corridor" within the dump
area: megafauna could then be trawled in this corridor without risk of
accidental recovery of waste packages.
The selection of appropriate time intervals and seasons for
megafaunal monitoring is dependent on many data not presently available.
Factors to consider include: (a) expected and observed release rates of
waste nuclides from containers; (b) the degree of trophic linkage between
the sediment community and dominant megafaunal species; (c) the dispersal
rate (e.g., lateral bioturbation rate) of sediment-sorbed waste nuclides;
and (d) seasonal variability in nuclide bioconcentration and transfer.
Data relating to the last three factors, at least, would be collected in
the previously outlined baseline monitoring program.
2^ In Situ Monitoring of Waste Containers
Time-series, in situ monitoring of waste canisters to address
(a) radionuclide dispersal processes and (b) the environmental impact of
disposal activities is likely to be desirable. This will necessitate use
of a submersible or ROV to collect samples on and around specific waste
containers in a manner similar to that outlined for baseline studies.
Again, sampling designs and monitoring frequencies are best specified
only after completion of baseline studies.
3_. Monitoring of General, Infaunal Community Structure
It should be mentioned that, as part of a trend-assessment program,
it may not be desirable to monitor infaunal community structure remotely
63
-------
(e.g., by box coring) from surface vessels. There 1s a high probability
that infaunal densities in an abyssal disposal site would be so low and
variable that even the most extreme consequences of LLRW disposal could
not be detected statistically, given any reasonable sampling program (cf.
Jumars, 1981). Baseline studies designed to assess (a) the
characteristics of the unperturbed infaunal assemblage, and (b) the
likely scales and intensities of LLRW disposal impacts should provide a
nonarbltrary basis for deciding whether remote monitoring of infaunal
benthos is desirable.
GENFRAL COMMENTS
Past dumping of LLRW in the deep sea, as well as in most
shallow-water areas, appears to have (a) caused only low-level increases
in radioactivity in the environment, and (b) shown no detectable
population-level damage to any known organism. Setting legal
requirements aside, it thus seems legitimate to ask whether future LLRW
disposal sites in the abyssal deep sea are really worth monitoring.
There are several reasons why the answer to this question is "yes."
First, the ecology of the deep sea is very poorly known; this is
especially true concerning the patterns and rates of material transfer
through abyssal ecosystems (see Rowe, 1983, for a review of recent
biological rate data from the deep sea). It thus might be surprisingly
easy to have overlooked critical pathways which transport radionuclides
from the abyss to surface waters. One need only recall that until the
early 1970s, the existence of the ubiquitous mobile scavenging fauna
(Shulenberger and Messier, 1974; Isaacs and Schwartzlose, 1975; Messier
et al., 1979) was largely unsuspected. It is entirely possible that
other potentially important nuclide vectors continue to elude our
sampling apparatus.
A second compelling reason to monitor LLRW disposal is to aid in the
development of realistic transfer models and the fine-tuning of
release-rate limits which require feedback obtainable only from
environmental monitoring (Webb, 1980).
Finally, another reason to carefully monitor LLRW disposal is not
only to assess transfer rates and processes for radionuclides, but also
to provide an analog for understanding the movement of other materials in
the marine environment. Monitoring results are likely to prove useful 1n
understanding the dispersal of nonradioactive chemicals, and in
elucidating the basic structure of deep-sea food chains themselves.
64
-------
REFERENCES
Aller R.C., and D.J. OeMaster. 1984. Estimates of particle flux and
reworking at the deep-sea floor using 234jn/238(j disequilibrium.
E. PI. Sci. Lett. 67:308-318.
Anderson D.R., Talbert D.M, Oeese O.A., Boyer D.G., Hermann H., and
J.E. Kelly. 1983. Strategy for assessing the technical, environmental,
and engineering feasibility of subseabed disposal. Pp. 327-344 In:
Wastes in the Ocean, Vol. 3: Radioactive Wastes and the Ocean, P. Park,
0. Kester, I. Duedall, and B. Ketchum, eds. W1ley-Interscience, New York.
Anderson S.L., and F.L. Harrison. 1986. Effects of radiation on aquatic
organisms and radiobiologlcal methodologies for effects assessment. EPA
520/1-85-016, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation
Programs, Washington, D.C.
Angel M.V. 1983. Are there any potentially Important routes whereby
radionuclides can be transferred by biological processes from the seabed
toward the surface? Pp. 161-194 In: Ecological Aspects of Radionuclide
Release, P.J. Coughtry, ed. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, England.
Bacon M.P., Huhn C.-A., Fleet A.P., and W.G. Deuser. 1985. Seasonality
1n the flux of radionuclldes and plutonium in the deep Sargasso Sea.
Deep-Sea Res. 32:273-286.
Barnes R.D. 1974. Invertebrate Zoology. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia,
870 pp.
Billett D.S.M., and B. Hansen. 1982. Abyssal aggregations of Kolga
hyalina Danielssen and Koren (Echlnodermata: Holothuroidea) 1n the
northeast Atlantic Ocean: a preliminary report. Deep-Sea Res.
29:799-818.
Blaylock B.G., and J.P. Witherspoon. 1975. Dose estimation and
prediction of radiation effects on aquatic biota resulting from
radioactive releases from the nuclear fuel cycle. Pp. 377-393
In: Impacts of Nuclear Releases into the Aquatic Environment. IAEA,
Vienna.
Boesch D.F. 1977. Application of numerical classification in ecological
investigations of water pollution. USEPA, Ecological Research Series,
EPA^600/3-77-033. Corvallis, Oreg., 115 pp.
Boudreau B.P., and N.L. Guinasso, Jr. 1982. The influence of a
diffusive sublayer on accretion, dissolution and diagenesls at the sea
floor. Pp. 115-145 In: The Dynamic Environment of the Ocean Floor,
K.A. Fanning, and F.T. Manheim, eds. Lexington.
65
-------
Bowen V.T., and C.D. Hollister. 1981. Pre- and post-dumping
Investigations for inauguration of new low-level radioactive waste dump
sites. Radioactive Waste Management 1:235-269.
Bowen V.T., and H.D. Livingston. 1981. Radionuclide distributions in
sediment cores retrieved from marine, radioactive waste dumpsites.
Pp. 33-66 In: Impacts of Radionuclide Releases into the Marine
Environment. IAEA, Vienna.
Brenchley G.A. 1981. Disturbance and community structure: an
experimental study of bioturbation in marine soft-bottom environments.
J. Mar. Res. 39:767-790.
Burnett B.B. 1981. Quantitative sampling of nanobiota (microbiota) of
the deep-sea benthos--III. The bathyal San Diego Irough. Deep-Sea Res.
28A:649-663.
Carey A.G., Jr. 1972. Food sources of sublittoral, bathyal and abyssal
asteroids of the northeast Pacific Ocean. Ophelia 10:35-47.
Carey A.G., Jr. 1981. A comparison of benthic infaunal abundance on two
abyssal plains in the northeast Pacific Ocean. Deep-Sea Res. 28a:267-479
Carey A.G., Jr. 1985. Benthic invertebrate studies. Pp. 601-626
In: Low-Level Waste Ocean Disposal Program Annual Technical Progress
Report June 1982-June 1983, Vol. II. M.G. Marietta, ed. Sandia Report
SAND83-2551/II.
Carey A.G., Jr., and N.H. Cutshall. 1973. Zinc-65 specific activities
from Oregon and Washington continental shelf sediments and benthic
invertebrate fauna. Pp. 287-303 In: Radioactive Contamination of the
Marine Environment, IAEA, Vienna.
Carney R.S. 1979. A report of the invertebrate megafauna collected by
otter trawl at the Farallon Islands radioactive waste disposal site
during the August-September and October EPA cruises of R/V Vetero IV.
Final contract report to the Office of Radiation Programs, U.S. EPA,
Washington, D.C.
Carney R.S. 1981. Bioturbation and deposition. Pp. 357-400
In: Principles of Benthic Marine Paleoecology. A.J. Boucot, ed.
Academic Press.
Carney R.S. 1983. Report on the invertebrate megafauna sampled by
trawling in the Atlantic 3800 meter low-level radioactive waste disposal
site. EPA-520/1-83-029, 17 pp.
66
-------
Carney R.S., and A.G. Carey, Jr. 1982. Distribution and diversity of
holothurians (Echinodermata) on Cascadia Basin and Tufts Abyssal Plain.
Deep-Sea Res. 29:597-607.
Carney R.S., Haedrich R.L., and G.T. Rowe. 1983. Zonation of fauna in
the deep sea. Pp. 371-398 In: The Sea, Vol. 8: Deep-Sea Biology. G.T.
Rowe, ed. Wiley-Interscience, New York.
Cherry R.D., and M. Heyraud. 1982. Evidence of high natural radiation
doses in certain mid-water oceanic organisms. Science 218:54-56.
Clarke H.L. 1907. The apodous holothurians. A monograph of the
Synaptidae and Molpadiidae. Smithson. Contrib. Knowl . 35:1-231.
Cliff A.D., and J.K. Ord. 1973. Spatial Autocorrelation. Pion, London,
178 pp.
Cochran J.K. 1982. The use of naturally occurring radionuclides as
tracers for biologically related processes in deep-sea sediments. Pp.
55-71 In: The Environment of the Deep Sea, W.G. Ernst, and J.G. Morin,
eds. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Cochran W.G. 1963. Sampling Techniques. Third Ed. Wiley. New York.
Cohen D.M. 1977. Ten dives of DSRV ALVIN in and near the DWD-106
Dumpsite 25 July-3 August, 1975. Introduction, station data, general
observations and conclusions. In: Baseline Report of Environmental
Conditions in Deepwater Dumpsite 106. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report
77-1 , Vol . III. Rockville, Md.
Cohen D.M., and D.L. Pawson. 1977. Observations from the DSRV ALVIN on
populations of benthic fishes and selected larger invertebrates in and
near DWD-106. Pp. 423-449 In: Baseline Report of Environmental
Conditions in Deepwater Dumpsite 106. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report
77-1 , Vol. II. Rockville, Md .
Colombo P., Neilson R.M., Jr., and M.W. Kendig. 1983. Analysis and
evaluation of a radioactive waste package retrieval from the Atlantic
Ocean. Pp. 237-268 In: Wastes in the Ocean, Vol. 3: Radioactive Wastes
in the Ocean, P.L. Park, D.R. Kester, I.W. Duedall, and B.H. Ketchum,
eds. Wiley-Interscience, New York.
Conan G., Roux M., and M. Sibuet. 1981.
population of the stalked crinoid Dlgjj
wyviljethomsoni (Echinodermata) from the
Biscay. Deep-Sea Res. 28:44 453.
A photographic survey of a
jmui (Annacrenus)
bathyal slope of the Bay of
67
-------
Corliss J.B., Dymond J., Gordon L.I., Edmond J.M., Von Herzen R.P.,
Ballard R.D., Green K., Williams D., Balnbridge A., Crane K., and T.H.
Van Andel. 1979. Submarine thermal springs on the Galapagos Rift.
Science 203:1073-1083.
Dahl E. 1979. Deep-sea carrion feeding amphipods: evolutionary
patterns in niche adaptation. Oikos 33:167-175.
Dayal R., Okubo A., Duedall I.W., and A. Ramamoorthy. 1979.
Radionuclide redistribution mechanisms at the 2800-m Atlantic nuclear
waste disposal site. Deep-Sea Res. 26A:1329-1345.
Dayton P.K., and R.R. Hessler. 1972. Role of biological disturbance in
maintaining diversity in the deep sea. Deep-Sea Res. 19:199-208.
DeMaster D.J., McKee B.A., Nittrouer C.A., Brewster D.C., and P.E.
Biscaye. 1985. Rates of sediment reworking at the HEBBLE site based on
measurements of Th-234, Cs-137 and Pb-210. Mar. Geol. 66:133-148.
Deming J.W., and R. Colwell. 1982. Barophilic bacteria associated with
digestive tracts of abyssal holothurians. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
44:1222-1230.
Desbruyeres D., Bervas J.Y., and A. Khripounoff. 1980. Un cas de
colonisation rapide d'un sediment profond. Oceanologica Acta 3:285-291.
Deuser W.G., and E.H. Ross. 1980. Seasonal change in the flux of
organic carbon to the deep Sargasso Sea. Nature 283:364-365.
Deuser W.G., Ross E.H., and R.F. Anderson. 1981. Seasonality in the
supply of sediment to the deep Sargasso Sea and implications for the
rapid transfer of matter to the deep ocean. Deep-Sea Res. 28:495-505.
Dexter S.C. 1982. Materials for containment of low-level nuclear waste
in the deep ocean. U.S. EPA Office of Radiation Programs Report No.
520/1-82-005, Washington, D.C.
Dixon W.J., and F.J. Massey, Or. 1969. Introduction to Statistical
Analysis. McGraw-Hill, New York, 638 pp.
Djakonov A.M. 1967. Ophiuroids of the U.S.S.R. Seas. Israel Program for
Scientific Translations.
Doi T., Kidachi T., Honjo K., Matsushita Y., Nemoto T., Shimigu M.,
Sudo H., and H. Tsuruga. 1980. A preliminary assessment of biological
transport of radionuclides dumped at deep-sea bottom. Pp. 95-110 In:
Marine Radioecology, OECD, Paris.
68
-------
Duursma E.K., and M.G. Gross. 1971. Marine sediments and radio-
activity. Pp. 147-160 In: Radioactivity in the Marine Environment,
National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
Dyer R.S. 1976. Environmental surveys of two deep-sea radioactive waste
disposal sites using submersibles. Pp. 317-335 In: Management of
Radioactive Wastes from the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Vol. II. IAEA, Vienna.
Eckman J.E. 1979. Small scale pattern and processes in a soft-bottom
substratum, intertidal community. J. Mar. Res. 37:4317-4157.
Eckman J.E. 1985. Flow disruption by an animal-tube mimic affects
sediment bacterial colonization. J. Mar. Res. 43:419-435.
Eckman J.E., and A.R.M. Newell. 1984. Boundary skin friction and
sediment transport about an animal-tube mimic. Sedimentology 31:851-862.
Eckman J.E., Nowell A.R.M., and P.A. Jumars. 1981. Sediment
destabillzatlon by animal tubes. J. Mar. Res. 39:361-374.
Eckman S. 1953. Zoogeography of the Sea. Sedgwick and Jackson, London,
417 pp.
Ernst W.G., and J.G. Morin (eds.). 1982. The Environment of the
Deep-Sea. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 371 pp.
Fauchald K. 1983. Life diagram patterns in benthic polychaetes. Proc.
Biol. Soc. Wash. 96:160-177.
Feldt W., Kanish G., and R. Lauer. 1981. Radioactive contamination of
the NEA dumping sites. Pp. 465-480 In: Impacts of Radionuclide Releases
into the Marine Environment, IAEA, Vienna.
Feller R.J. 1984. Dietary immunoassay of Ilyanassa obsoleta. the
eastern mud snail. Biol. Bull. 166:96-102.
Feller R.J., and E.D. Gallagher. 1982. Antigenic similarities among
estuarine soft-bottom taxa. Oecologla 52:305-310.
Feller R.J., Taghon G.L., Gallagher E.D., Kenney G.E., and P.A. Jumars.
1979. Immunologlcal methods for food web analysis in a soft-bottom
community. Mar. Biol. 54:61-74.
Feller R.J., Zagusky G., and E.A. Day. 1985. Deep-sea food-web analysis
using cross-reacting antisera. Deep-Sea Res. 32:485-497.
Folsom T.R., and T.M. Beasley. 1973. Contributions from the alpha
emitter, Polonium-210, to the natural radiation environment of the marine
organism. Pp. 625-632 In: Radioactive Contamination of the Marine
Environment, IAEA, Vienna, 786 pp.
69
-------
Gage J.D., Lightfoot R.H., Pearson M., and P.A. Tyler. 1980. An
Introduction to a sample time-series of abyssal macrobenthos: methods
and principle sources of variability. Oceanol. Acta 3:169-176.
Gage J.D., and P.A. Tyler. 1982. Depth-related gradients in size
structure and the bathymetric zonation of deep-sea brittle stars. Mar.
Biol. 71:299-308.
George R.Y. 1979a. What adaptive strategies promote immigration and
speciation in deep-sea environment? Sarsia 64:61-66.
George R.Y. 1979b. Behavioral and metabolic adaptation of polar and
deep-sea crustaceans: A hypothesis concerning physiological basis for
evolution of cold adapted crustaceans. Bull. Biol. Soc. Wash. 3:283-296.
Goldberg E.D. 1976. The Health of the Oceans. UNESCO Press, Paris.
Gomez L.S., Talbert D.M., Marietta M.G., Messier R.R., Smith K.L., Jr.,
Yayanos A.A., and O.W. Jackson. 1983. Biological ramifications of
subseabed disposal of high-level nuclear wastes. Pp. 41-429 In: Wastes
in the Ocean, Vol. 3: Radioactive Wastes and the Ocean, P. Park, 0.
Kester, I. Duedall, and B. Ketchum, eds. Wiley-Interscience, New York.
Grassle J.F. 1977. Slow recolonization of deep-sea sediment. Nature
265:618-619.
Grassle J.F., and J.P. Grassle. 1976. Sibling species in the marine
pollution indicator Capitella (Polychaeta). Science 192:567-569.
Grassle J.F., and H.L. Sanders. 1973. Life histories and the role of
disturbance. Deep-Sea Res. 20:643-659.
Grassle J.F., Sanders H.L., and W.K. Smith. 1979. Faunal changes with
depth in the deep-sea benthos. Ambio. Spec. Rpt. #6:47-50.
Grassle J.F., and W. Smith. 1976. A similarity measure sensitive to the
contribution of rare species and its use in investigation of variation in
marine benthic communities. Oecologia (Berl.) 25:13-22.
Green R.H. 1979. Sampling design and statistical methods for
environmental biologists. Wiley-Interscience, New York, 257 pp.
Grille M.C., Guary J.C., and S.W. Fowler. 1981. Comparative studies of
transuranium nuclide biokinetics in sediment-dwelling invertebrates.
Pp. 273-291 In: Impacts of Radionuclide Releases into the Marine
Environment, IAEA, Vienna.
70
-------
Guinasso N.L., Jr., and D.R. Schinck. 1975. Quantitative estimates of
biological mixing rates 1n abyssal sediments. J. Geophys. Res.
80:3032-3043.
HaedMch R.L., and N.R. Henderson. 1974. Pelagic food of Coryphaenoldes
armatus. a deep benthlc rattan. Deep-Sea Res. 21:739-744.
Haedrlch R.L., and G.T. Rowe. 1977. Megafaunal blomass 1n the deep
sea. Nature 269:141-142.
Haedrlch R.L., Rowe G.T., and P.T. Pollonl. 1975. Zonatlon and faunal
composition of eplbenthlc populations on the continental slope south of
New England. J. Mar. Res. 33:191-212.
Haedrlch R.L., Rowe G.T., and P.T. Pollonl. 1980. The megabenthlc fauna
1n the deep sea off New England. U.S.A. Mar. Blol. 57:165-179.
Hagen A.A. 1983. History of low-level radioactive waste disposal 1n the
sea. Pp. 47-64 In: Wastes 1n the Ocean, Vol. 3: Radioactive Wastes and
the Ocean, P. Park, D. Kester, I. Duedall, and B. Ketchum, eds.
W1ley-Intersc1ence, New York.
Hansen B. 1975. Systematlcs and biology of the deep-sea holothurians.
Galathea Rept. 13:1-262.
Hargrave B.T. 1985. Feeding rates of abyssal scavenging amphlpods
(Eurythenes gryllus) determined 1_n situ by time-lapse photography.
Deep-Sea Res. 32:443-450.
Harrison F.L. 1973. Accumulation and loss of cobalt and caesium by the
marine clam, Mya arenaria. under laboratory and field conditions.
Pp. 453-478 In: Radioactive Contamination of the Marine Environment,
IAEA, Vienna.
Hecker B., and A.Z. Paul. 1979. Abyssal community structure of the
benthlc Infauna of the eastern equatorial Pacific: Domes sites A, B and
C. Pp. 287-308 In: Marine Geology and Oceanography of the Pacific
Manganese Nodule Province, J.L. Bischoff, and D.Z. Piper, eds. Plenum,
New York.
Heirtzier J.R., and J.F. Grassle. 1976. Deep-sea research by manned
submersibles. Science 194:294-299.
Mersey J.B. 1967. Deep-Sea Photography, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore,
310 pp.
71
-------
Hessler R.R. 1974. The structure of deep benthlc communities from
central oceanic waters. In: Biology of the Oceanic Pacific, Oregon
State Univ. Press.
Hessler R.R., Ingram C.L., Yayanos A.A., and B.R. Burnett. 1978.
Scavenging amphlpods from the floor of the Philippine Trench. Deep-Sea
Res. 25:1029-1047.
Hessler R.R., and P.A. Jumars. 1974. Abyssal community analysis from
replicate box cores In the Central North Pacific. Deep-Sea Res.
21:185-209.
Hessler R.R., and P.A. Jumars. 1979. The relation of benthlc
communities to radioactive waste disposal In the deep-sea. Amblo. Spec.
Rpt. #6:93-96.
Hessler R.R., and H.L. Sanders. 1967. Faunal diversity 1n the deep
sea. Deep-Sea Res. 14:65-78.
Hessler R.R., and W.M. Smlthey, Jr. 1984. The distribution and
community structure of megafauna at the Galapagos rift hydrothermal
vents. Pp. 735-770 In: Hydrothermal Processes at Seafloor Spreading
Centers, P.A. Rona, K. Bostrom, L. Laubler, and K.L. Smith, Jr., eds.,
Plenum.
HolHster C.D., Newell A.R.M., and P.A. Jumars. 1984. The dynamic
abyss. Sd. Amer. 250:42-53.
Holme N.A., and A.D. Mclntyre. 1984. Methods for the Study of Marine
Benthos, IBP Handbook 16, Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, England, 387 pp.
Hurlbert S.H. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological
field experiments. Ecol. Monogr. 54:187-211.
Huston M. 1979. A general hypothesis of species diversity. Am. Nat.
113:81-101.
Ingram C.L., and R.R. Hessler. 1983. Distributional and behavioral
patterns of scavenging amphlpods from the central North Pacific.
Deep-Sea Res. 30:683-706.
Ingram C.L., and R.R. Hessler. 1984. Benthlc motile scavengers from
E-N2, a site near the Hatteras Abyssal Plain. A report submitted to
Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, March 1984, Contract NDP 83-2124-AB.
Isaacs J.D., and R.A. Schwartzlose. 1975. Active animals of the
deep-sea floor. Sd. Amer. 233:85-91.
72
-------
Jangoux M. 1982. Food and feeding mechanisms: Asteroldea. Pp. 117-160
In: Echlnoderm Nutrition, M. Jangoux, and J.M. Lawrence, eds.
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Jumars P.A. 1975. Methods for measurement of community structure 1n
deep-sea macrobenthos. Mar. B1ol. 30:245-252.
Jumars P.A. 1978. Spatial autocorrelation with RUM (Remote Underwater
Manipulator): vertical and horizontal structure of a bathyal benthlc
community. Deep-Sea Res. 25:589-604.
Jumars P.A. 1981. Limits In predicting and detecting benthlc community
responses to manganese nodule mining. Marine Mining 3:213-229.
Jumars P.A., and J.E. Eckman. 1983. Spatial structure within deep-sea
benthic communities. Pp. 399-451 In: The Sea, Vol. 8: Deep-Sea
Biology, G.T. Rowe, ed. Wiley-Intersdence, New York.
Jumars P.A., and K. Fauchald. 1977. Between-community contrasts 1n
successful polychaete feeding strategies. Pp. 1-20 In: Ecology of
Marine Benthos, B.C. Coull, ed., University of South Carolina Press.
Jumars P.A., and E.D. Gallagher. 1982. Deep-sea community structure:
three plays on the benthlc proscenium. Pp. 217-255 In: The Environment
of the Deep Sea, W.G. Ernst, and J.G. Morln, eds. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood CUffs, New Jersey, 371 pp.
Jumars P.A., Thistle D., and M.L. Jones. 1977. Detecting
two-dimensional spatial structure 1n biological data. Oecologla
28:109-123.
Kathren R.L. 1984. Radioactivity 1n the Environment, Harwood Academic,
New York, 397 pp.
Keller C.H. 1985. Benthlc megafauna at deep-sea study areas W-N and
E-N. Pp. 627-659 In: Low-Level Waste Ocean Disposal Program Annual
Technical Progress Report, Vol. II. M.G. Marietta, ed. Sandla Report
SAND83-2551/II.
Khrlpounoff A., and M. Slbuet. 1980. La nutrition d'echlnodermes
abyssaux. I--Al1mentat1on des holothurles. Mar. B1ol. 60:17-26.
Laver M.B., Olsson M.S., Edelman J.L., and K.L. Smith, Jr. In press.
Swimming rates of scavenging deep-sea amphipods recorded with a
free-vehicle camera. Deep-Sea Res.
73
-------
Lemche H., Hansen B., Madsen F.J., Tendal O.S., and T. Wolff. 1976.
Hadal life as analyzed from photographs. Vldensk Medelelelser Dansk
NaturhistoMk Forenlng 139:263-336.
Levin L.A., and C.R. Smith. 1984. Response of background fauna to
disturbance and enrichment 1n the deep sea: a sediment trap experiment.
Deep-Sea Res. 31:1277-1285.
Ussner A., Phillips C., Ladlen 0., Smith R., Bernstein B., dmberg R.,
Kaullng T., and W. Anlkouchine. 1985. Assessment of Long-Term Changes
In Biological Communities In the Santa Maria Basin and Western Santa
Barbara ChannelPhase I. Vol. II, Synthesis of Findings. Science
Applications International Corporation (SAIC), La Jol'a. Report for MMS
Contract No. 14-12-0001-300232.
LHvlnova N.M., and M.N. Sokolova. 1971. Feeding of deep-sea ophlurolds
of the genus Amphlophlura. Oecologla 11:240-247.
Lowman F.G., R1ce T.R., and F.A. Richards. 1971. Accumulation and
redistribution of radlonuclldes by marine organisms. Pp. 161-199
In: Radioactivity 1n the Marine Environment, Nat. Acad. Sc1., U.S.A.
Lundalv T. 1971. Quantitative studies on rocky bottom blocoenoses by
underwater photogrammetry: a methodological study. Thalassla Jugo.
7:205-213.
MacG1n1t1e G.E., and N. MacG1n1t1e. 1968. Natural History of Marine
Animals, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, 523 pp.
Marietta M.G., ed. 1985. Low-Level Waste Ocean Disposal Program Annual
Technical Progress Report June 1982-June 1983, Vol. II. Sandla Report
SAND83-2551/II.
Marshall N.B. 1979. Deep-Sea Biology: Developments and Perspectives.
Garland STPM, New York.
Marshall N.B., and D.W. Bourne. 1964. A photographic survey of benthlc
fishes in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, with observations on their
population density, diversity, and habits. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool.
132:223-244.
Massin C. 1982. Food and feeding mechanisms: Holothuroldea. Pp. 43-56
In: Echlnoderm Nutrition, M. Jangoux, and J.N. Lawrence, eds. A.A.
Balkema, Rotterdam.
McLellan T. 1977. Feeding strategies of the macrourlds. Deep-Sea Res.
24:1019-1036.
74
-------
Monniot C., and M. Segonzac. 1984. La compagne oceanographlque abyssale
Abyplalne. Caracteristiques des stations et des peuplements benthlque.
Oceanol. Acta 8:67-76.
MulUn M.M., and L.S. Gomez. 1981. Biological and related chemical
research concerning subseabed disposal of high-level nuclear waste:
Report of a workshop at Jackson Hole, Wyoming, January 12-16, 1981.
Sandla Report SAND81-0012.
Muslck J.A., and Sulak. 1978. Characterization of the demersal fish
community of a deep-sea radioactive dump site (Results of cruise
EPA-7801, R/V Advance II, 21-27 June 1978). Contract report submitted to
the U.S. EPA, from Virginia Inst. Mar. Sd.
NEA. 1985. Review of the continued suitability of the dumping site for
radioactive waste in the North-East Atlantic, OECD, Paris, 448 pp.
Nowell A.R.M., and M. Church. 1979. turbulent flow 1n a depth-limited
boundary layer. J. Geophys. Res. 84:4816-4824.
Nowell A.R.M., Hollister C.D., and P.A. Jumars. 1982. High Energy
Boundary Layer Experiment: HEBBLE. EOS 63:594-595.
Nowell A.R.M., and P.A. Jumars. 1984. Flow environments of aquatic
benthos. Annual Review of Ecology and Syst.ematics 15:303-338.
Ohta S. 1983. Photographic census of large-sized benthic organisms in
the bathyal zone of Suruga Bay, Central Japan. Bull. Ocean Res. Inst. U.
Tokyo 15:1-244.
Ohta S. 1984. Star-shaped feeding traces produced by echluran worms on
the deep-sea floor of the Bay of Bengal. Deep-Sea Res. 31:1415-1432.
Osterberg C.L. 1975. Radiological impacts of releases from nuclear
power facilities into aquatic environmentsU.S.A. views. Pp. 25-32
In: Impacts of Nuclear Releases into the Aquatic Environment, IAEA,
Vienna.
Osterberg C.L. 1983. Nuclear war and the ocean. Pp. 432-479
In: Wastes 1n the Ocean, Vol. 3: Radioactive Wastes and the Ocean,
P. Park, D. Kester, I. Duedall, and B. Ketchum, eds. W1ley-Intersc1ence,
New York.
Paine R.T. 1977. Controlled manipulations in the marine intertldal
zone, and their contributions to ecological theory. Pp. 245-270 In: The
Changing Scenes 1n Natural Sciences, 1776-1976, Acad. Nat. Sci., Spec.
Publ. 12.
75
-------
Park P.K., Kester D., Duedall I.W., and B.H. Ketchum. 1983a.
Radioactive wastes and the ocean: an overview. Pp. 3-46 In: Wastes 1n
the Ocean, Vol. 3: Radioactive Wastes and the Ocean. P.K. Park, D.
Kester, I.W. Duedall, and B.H. Ketchum, eds. W1ley-Intersc1ence, New York.
Park P.K., Kester D., Duedall I.W., and B.H. Ketchum. 1983b.
Requirements for radioactive waste management 1n the ocean. Pp. 481-506
In: Wastes 1n the Ocean, Vol. 3: Radioactive Wastes and the Ocean.
P.K. Park, D. Kester, I.W. Duedall, and B.H. Ketchum, eds.
W1ley-Intersc1ence, New York.
Park P.K., Kester D., Duedall I.W., and B.H. Ketchum, eds. 1983c.
Wastes In the Ocean, Vol. 3: Radioactive Wastes and the Ocean.
WHey-Intersdence, New York, 522 pp.
Patel B., Mulay C.D., and A.K. Garguly. 1975. Radloecology of Bombay
Harbora tidal estuary. Est. Coast. Mar. Sd. 3:13-42.
Paul A.Z., Thorndlke E.M., Sullivan L.G., Herzen B.C., and R.B. Gerard.
1978. Observations of the deep-sea floor from 202 days of time-lapse
photography. Nature 272:812-814.
Pawson D.L. 1976. Some aspects of the biology of deep-sea echlnoderms.
Thalassla Jugo. 12:287-293.
Pearcy W.G., and J.W. Ambler. 1974. Food habits of deep-sea macrourld
fishes off the Oregon coast. Deep-Sea Res. 21:745-759.
Pearcy W.G., Stein D.L., and R.S. Carney. 1982. The deep-sea benthlc
fish fauna of the Northeastern Pacific Ocean on Cascadla and Tufts
Abyssal Plains and adjoining continental slopes. Blol. Oceanogr.
1:375-428.
Pearcy W.G., and H.A. Vanderploeg. 1973. Radloecology of benthlc fishes
off Oregon. Pp. 245-261 In: Radioactive Contamination of the Marine
Environment, IAEA, Vienna, 786 pp.
Pentreath R.J. 1980. Nuclear Power, Man and the Environment. Taylor
and Francis, London, 255 pp.
Pentreath R.J. 1981. The biological availability to marine organisms of
transuranium and other long-lived nuclldes. Pp. 241-272 In: Impacts of
Rad1onucl1de Releases Into the Marine Environment, IAEA, Vienna.
Pentreath R.J., Jeffries D.F., and M.B. Lovett. 1980b. The behavior of
transuranlc and other long-lived radlonuclldes 1n the Irish Sea and Us
relevance to the deep sea disposal of radioactive wastes. Pp. 203-224
In: Marine Radloecology, OECD, Paris.
76
-------
Pentreath R.J., Woodhead D.S., Harvey B.R., and R.D. Ibbett. 1980a. A
preliminary assessment of some naturally occurring radlonucHdes on
marine organisms (Including deep-sea fish) and the absorbed dose
resulting from them. Pp. 291-302 In: Marine Radloecology. OECD, Paris.
Phillips J.P-, Orlscoll A.M., Peal K.R., Marquet W.M., and D.M. Owen.
1979. A new undersea geological survey tool: Angus. Deep-Sea Res.
26:211-255.
Planka E.R. 1974. Evolutionary Ecology. Harper and Row, New York.
356 pp.
Plelou E.G. 1977. Mathematical Ecology, W1ley-Intersc1ence, New York.
Plelou E.G. 1984.
W1ley-Intersc1ence,
The Interpretation of Ecological Data,
New York, 263 pp.
Preston A. 1975.
facilities to the
Releases Into the
The radiological consequences of releases from nuclear
aquatic environment. Pp. 3-23 In: Impacts of Nuclear
Marine Environment, IAEA, Vienna.
Preston A. 1983. Deep-sea disposal of radioactive wastes. Pp. 107-122
In: Wastes 1n the Ocean, Vol. 3: Radioactive Wastes and the Ocean.
P. Park, D. Kester, I. Duedall, and B. Ketchum, eds. W1ley-Intersc1ence,
New York.
Preston A., and N.T. Mitchell. 1973. Evaluation of public radiation
exposure from the controlled marine disposal of radioactive waste (with
special reference to the U.K.). Pp. 575-593 In: Radioactive
Contamination of the Marine Environment, IAEA, Vienna, 786 pp.
Relsh D.J. 1983a. Survey of the benthlc Invertebrates collected from
the United States 2800 meter radioactive waste disposal site 1n the
Atlantic Ocean. EPA 520/1-82-003, Office of Radiation Programs,
Washington, D.C.
Relsh D.J. 1983b. Survey of the marine benthlc Infauna collected from
the United States radioactive waste disposal sites of the Farallon
Islands, California. EPA 520/1-83-006, Office of Radiation Programs,
Washington, D.C.
Rex M.A. 1981. Community structure 1n the deep-sea benthos.
Ecol. and Syst. 12:331-353.
Ann. Rev.
Rex M.A. 1983. Geographic patterns of species diversity 1n the deep-sea
benthos. Pp. 453-472 In: The Sea, Vol. 8: Deep-Sea Biology, G.T. Rowe,
ed. W1ley-Intersc1ence, New York.
77
-------
Rex M.A., and A. Waren. 1982. Planktotrophic development In deep-sea
prosobranch snails from the western North Atlantic. Deep-Sea Res.
29:171-184.
Rhoads D.C., and J.D. Germano. 1982. Characterization of organism-
sediment relations using sediment profile Imaging: an efficient method
of remote ecological monitoring of the seafloor (Remots System).
Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 8:115-128.
Rhoads D.C., and G. Pannella. 1970. The use of molluscan shell growth
patterns in ecology and paleoecology. Lethaia 3:143-161.
Rhoads O.C., and O.K. Young. 1971. Animal-sediment relations in Cape
Cod Bay, Massachusetts. II. Reworking by Molpadia oolitica
(Holothuroidea). Mar. Biol. 11:255-261.
Rice A.I. 1978. Radio-active waste disposal and deep-sea biology.
Oceanol. Acta 1:483-491.
Rice A.L., Aldred R.G., Darlington E., and R.A. Wild. 1982. The
quantitative estimation of the deep-sea megabenthos; a new approach to an
old problem. Oceanol. Acta 5:63-72.
Rona P.A., Bostrom K., Laubler L., and K.L. Smith, Jr. 1984. Hydro-
thermal Processes at Seafloor Spreading Centers, Plenum, New York.
Rowe G.T. 1983. Blomass and production of the deep-sea macrobenthos.
Pp. 97-121 In: The Sea, Vol. 8: Oeep-Sea Biology, G.T. Rowe, ed.
Wiley-Intersdence, New York.
Rowe G.T., and R. Menzies. 1969. Zonation of large benthlc
invertebrates in the deep-sea off the Carolinas. Deep-Sea Res.
16:531-581.
Rowe G.T., Polloni P.T., and R.L. Haedrlch. 1982. The deep-sea
macrobenthos on the continental margin of the northwest Atlantic Ocean.
Deep-Sea Res. 29:257-278.
Rowe G.T., and M. Sibuet. 1983. Recent advances In instrumentation 1n
deep-sea biological research. Pp. 81-95 In: The Sea, Vol. 8: Deep-Sea
Biology, G.T. Rowe, ed. Wiley-Interscience, New York.
Ryan W.B.F., and J.A. Farre. 1983. Potential of radioactive and other
waste disposals on the continental margin by natural processes. Pp.
215-236 In: Wastes 1n the Ocean, Vol. 3: Radioactive Wastes and the
Ocean, P.K. Park, D.R. Kester, I.W. Duedall, and B.H. Ketchum, eds.
Wlley-Interscience, New York.
78
-------
Saint Laurent, M. de. 1972. Les Parapagurldae. B1j dragen tot de
Dlerkunde 42:97-dl23.
Sanders H.L. 1979. Evolutionary ecology and Hfe-hlstory patterns 1n
the deep sea. Sarsla 64:1-7.
Sanders H.L., Grassle J.F., Hampson 6.R., Morse L.S., Garner-Price S.,
and C.C. Jones. 1980. Anatomy of an oil spill: long-term effects from
the grounding of the barge Florida off West Falmouth, Massachusetts. J.
Mar. Res. 38:265-380.
Sanders H.L., Hessler R.R., and G.R. Hampson. 1965. An Introduction to
the study of deep-sea benthlc faunal assemblages along the Gay Head -
Bermuda transect. Deep-Sea Res. 12:845-867-
Santschl P.H., Bowen P., Nyffeler U.P.N., Azevedo A., and W.S. Broecker.
1983. Estimates of the resistance to chemical transport posed by the
deep-sea boundary layer. Llmnol. Oceanogr. 28:899-912.
Schell W.R., and A.E. Nev1ss1. 1983. Rad1onucl1des of the Hudson Canyon
disposal site. Pp. 183-214 In: Wastes 1n the Ocean, Vol. 3:
Radioactive Wastes and the Ocean. P.K. Park, D.R. Kester, I.W. Duedall,
and B.H. Ketchum, eds. W1ley-Intersc1ence, New York.
Schell W.R., and S. Sugal. 1980. Rad1onucl1des at the U.S. radioactive
waste disposal site near the Farallon Islands. Health Physics 39:475-496
Schoener A. 1967. Postlarval development 1n five deep-sea ophlurolds.
Deep-Sea Res. 14:645-660.
Schoener A. 1969. Atlantic ophiurolds: some post-larval forms. Deep-
Sea Res. 16:127-140.
Schoener A. 1972. Fecundity and possible mode of development of some
deep-sea ophlurolds. Llmnol. Oceanogr. 17:193-199.
Schoener A., and G.T. Rowe. 1970. Pelagic Sargassum and Its presence
among the deep-sea benthos. Deep-Sea Res. 17:923-925.
Shulenberger E., and R.R. Hessler. 1974. Scavenging abyssal benthlc
amphlpods trapped under ollgotrophic North Pacific Gyre waters. Mar.
B1ol. 28:185-187.
Shutts R.L. 1975. Unmanned deep sea free vehicle system: operation and
service manual. Institute of Marine Resources, Univ. Calif., San Diego,
50 pp.
79
-------
Slbuet M. 1984. Les Invertebres detrltlvres dans 1'ecosysteme abyssal:
selection de la nourrlture et regime a!1menta1re chez les holothurles.
Oceans 10:623-639.
Slbuet M., and J.M. Lawrence. 1981. Organic content and blomass of
abyssal holothurolds (Echlnodermata) from the Bay of Biscay. Mar. B1ol.
65:143-147.
Slbuet M., Monnlot C., Desbruyeres D., 01net A., Khrlpounoff A., Rowe G.,
and M. Segonzac. 1984. Peuplements benthiques et caracterlstlques
trophies du milieu dans la plalne abyssale de Demerara dans 1'Ocean
Atlantlque. Oceanol. Acta 7:345-357.
Slebenaller J.F., Somero G.N., and R.L. HaedMch. 1982. Biochemical
characteristics of macrourld fishes differing 1n their depths of
distribution. Blol. Bull. 163:240-249.
Sjoblom K.L., and J. Ojala. 1981. Initial experience with aquatic
environmental monitoring programmes around Finnish nuclear power plants.
Pp. 515-534 In: Impacts of Rad1onucl1de Releases Into the Marine
Environment, IAEA, Vienna.
Smith C.R. 1983a. Enrichment, disturbance and deep-sea community
structure: the significance of large organic falls to bathyal benthos 1n
Santa Catallna Basin. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, San
Diego, 310 pp.
Smith C.R. 1985a. Food for the deep sea: utilization, dispersal and
flux of nekton falls at the Santa Catallna Basin floor. Deep-Sea Res.
32:417-442.
Smith C.R. 1985b. Colonization studies 1n the deep sea: are results
biased by experimental designs? Pp. 103-190 In: Proceedings of the 19th
European Marine Biology Symposium, P.E. G1bbs, ed. Cambridge University
Press.
Smith C.R. 1986. Nekton falls, low-Intensity disturbance and community
structure of Infaunal benthos 1n the deep sea. J. Mar. Res. 44.
Smith C.R., and S.C. Hamilton. 1983. Ep1benth1c megafauna of a bathyal
basin off southern California: patterns of abundance, blomass and
dispersion. Deep-Sea Res. 30:907-928.
Smith C.R., Jumars P.A., and D.J. DeMaster. In press. In situ studies
of megafaunal mounds Indicate rapid sediment turnover and community
response at the deep-sea floor. Nature (London).
80
-------
Smith C.R., and T.M.C. Present. 1983. In vivo marking of shallow-water
and deep-sea amphlpods by 1ngest1on of bait mixed with fast green. Mar.
B1ol. 73:183-192.
Smith K.L., Jr. 1978a. Metabolism of the abyssopelaglc rattall
Coryphaenoldes armatus measured 1n situ. Nature (Lond.) 274:302-304.
Smith K.L., Jr.
Atlantic Ocean:
47:337-347.
1978b. Benthlc community respiration 1n the N.W.
1n situ measurements from 40-5200 m. Mar. B1ol.
Mar.
Smith K.L., Jr. 1983b. Metabolism of two dominant eplbenthlc
echlnoderms measured at bathyal depths 1n the Santa Catallna Basin.
B1ol. 72:249-256.
Smith K.L., Jr., and R.J. Baldwin. 1982. Scavenging deep-sea
amphlpods: effects of food odor on oxygen consumption and a proposed
metabolic strategy. Mar. B1ol. 68:287-298.
Smith K.L., Jr., and R.J. Baldwin. 1984a. Vertical distribution of the
necrophagous amphlpod, Eurythene gryllus. 1n the North Pacific: spatial
and temporal variation. Deep-Sea Res. 31:1179-1196.
Smith K.L., Jr., and R.J. Baldwin. 1984b. Seasonal fluctuations 1n
deep-sea sediment community oxygen consumption: central and eastern
North Pacific. Nature (Lond.) 307:624-626.
Smith K.L., Jr., and R.R. Messier. 1974. Respiration of benthopelaglc
fishes: In. situ measurements at 1230 meters. Science 184:72-73.
Smith K.L., Jr., and K.R. H1nga. 1983. Sediment community respiration
1n the deep sea. Pp. 331-370 In: The Sea, Vol. 8: Deep-Sea Biology,
G.T. Rowe, ed. WHey-Intersdence, New York.
Smith K.L., Jr., Laver M.B., and N.O. Brown. 1983. Sediment community
oxygen consumption and nutrient exchange 1n the central and eastern North
Pacific. Llmnol. Oceanogr. 28:882-898.
Smith K.L., Jr., and G.A. White. 1982. Ecological energetic studies In
the deep-sea benthlc boundary layer: 1n situ respiration studies. Pp.
279-300 In: The Environment of the Deep Sea, W.G. Ernst, and G. Morln,
eds., Prentice-Hall, Englewood CUffs, New Jersey.
Smith K.L., Jr., White G.A., Laver M.B., McConnaughey R.R., and
J.P. Meador. 1979. Free vehicle capture of abyssopelaglc animals.
Deep-Sea Res. 26:57-64.
81
-------
Snider L.J., Burnett B.R., and R.R. Messier. 1984. The composition and
distribution of melofauna and nanoblota 1n a central North Pacific
deep-sea area. Oeep-Sea Res. 31:1225-1248.
Somero G.N. 1982. Physiological and chemical adaptations of deep-sea
fishes: adaptive responses to the physical and biological
characteristics of the abyss. Pp. 256-278 In: The Environment of the
Deep Sea, W.G. Ernst, and J.G. Morln, eds. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
CUffs, New Jersey.
Somero G.N., Slebenaller J.F., and P.M. Hochachka. 1983. Biochemical
and physiological adaptations of deep-sea animals. Pp. 261-330 In: The
Sea, Vol. 8: Deep-Sea Biology, G.T. Rowe, ed. W1ley-Intersc1ence, New
York.
Stein D.L. 1980. Description and occurrence of macrourld larvae and
juveniles 1n the northeast Pacific Ocean off Oregon, U.S.A. Deep-Sea
Res. 27:889-900.
Stein D.L. 1985. Towing large nets by single warp at abyssal depths:
methods and biological results. Deep-Sea Res. 32:183-200.
Stein D.L., and W.G. Pearcy. 1982. Aspects of reproduction, early life
history, and biology of macrourld fishes off Oregon. Deep-Sea Res.
29:1313-1329.
Stockton W.L., and T.E. DeLaca. 1982. Food falls 1n the deep sea:
occurrence, quality and significance. Deep-Sea Res. 29:157-169.
Templeton W.L. 1980. Ecological effects of transuranlcs 1n the marine
environment. Pp. 3-12 In: Radiation Effects on Aquatic Organisms, N.E.
Gam1, ed. University Park Press, Baltimore.
Templeton W.L. 1981. Dumping of low-level radioactive wastes 1n the
deep ocean. Pp. 451-464 In: Impacts of Rad1onucl1de Releases Into the
Marine Environment, IAEA, Vienna.
Templeton W.L. 1983. Lessons from radioactive waste disposal applied to
other pollutants. Pp. 409-480 In: Wastes 1n the Ocean, Vol. 3:
Radioactive Wastes and the Ocean, P.K. Park, D.R. Kester, I.W. Duedall,
and B.H. Ketchum, eds. W1ley-Intersc1ence, New York.
Tendall O.S., and R.R. Messier. 1977- An Introduction to the biology
and systematlcs of Komoklacea (TextulaMa, Foramlnlfera). Galathea
Rpt. 14.
82
-------
Thayer C.W. 1983. Sediment-mediated biological disturbance and
evolution of marine benthos. Pp. 479-625 In: B1ot1c Interaction 1n
Recent and Fossil Communities, M.J.S. Tevesz, and P.N. McCall, eds.,
Plenum, 837 pp.
Thlel H. 1979. Structural aspects of the deep-sea benthos. Amblo.
Spec. Rep. 6:25-31.
Thlel H. 1983. Melobenthos and nanobenthos of the deep sea.
Pp. 167-230 In: The Sea, Vol. 8: Deep-Sea Biology, G.T. Rowe, ed.
W1ley-Intersc1ence, New York.
Thistle D. 1978. Harpact1co1d dispersion patterns: Implication for
deep-sea diversity maintenance. J. Mar. Res. 36:377-397.
Thistle 0. 1979. Deep-sea harpactlcold copepod diversity maintenance:
the role of polychaetes. Mar. B1ol. 52:371-376.
Thistle 0. 1983a. The stability-time hypothesis as a predictor of
diversity 1n deep-sea soft-bottom communities: a test. Deep-Sea Res.
30:267-277.
Thistle D. 1983b. Diversity maintenance 1n a deep-sea community exposed
to energetic near-bottom currents: a role for biologically produced
habitat heterogeneity? Deep-Sea Res. 30:1235-1245.
Thurston M.H. 1979. Scavenging abyssal amphlpods from the North-East
Atlantic Ocean. Mar. B1ol. 51:55-68.
Tletjen J.H. 1984. Distribution and species diversity of deep-sea
nematodes 1n the Venezuela Basin. Deep-Sea Res. 31:119-132.
Tunn1cl1ffe V. 1981. High species diversity and abundance of the
eplbenthlc community 1n an oxygen-deficient basin. Nature 294:354-356.
Tureklan K.K., Cochran J.K., Kharkar D.P., Cerrato R.M., Valsnys J.R.,
Sanders H.L., Grassle J.F., and O.A. Allen. 1975. Slow growth rate of a
deep-sea clam determined by 228Ra chronology. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sd.
72:2829-2832.
Turner R.D. 1973. Wood-boring bivalves, opportunistic species 1n the
deep sea. Science 180:1377-1379.
Turner R.D. 1977. Wood, mollusks, and deep-sea food chains. Bull. Am.
Malac. Union. 213:13-19.
Tyler P.A. 1980. Deep-sea ophlurolds. Oceanogr. Mar. B1ol. Ann. Rev.
18:125-153.
83
-------
Tyler P.A., Pain S.L., and J.D. Gage. 1982. Gametogenlc cycles In
deep-sea phanerozoan asteroids from the N.E. Atlantic. International
Echlnoderms Conference, Tampa Bay, J.M. Lawrence, ed. A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam.
Waren A., and R. Carney. 1981. Ophlolamla armlgerl gen et sp. n.
(Mollusca, Prosobranchla) parasitic on the abyssal ophlurold Qph1omus1um
armlgerum. Sarsla 66:183-193.
Warner G. 1982. Food and feeding mechanisms: Oph1uro1dea. Pp. 161-184
In: Echlnoderm Nutrition, M. Jangoux, and J.M. Lawrence, eds.
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Weaver P.P.E., and P.J. Schulthelss. 1983. Vertical open burrows In
deep-sea sediments 2 m 1n length. Nature 301:329-331.
Webb G.A.M. 1980b. The Interaction between radiological assessments and
research requirements related to waste disposal 1n the deep sea.
Pp. 13-24 In: Marine Radloecology. OECO, Paris.
Whicker F.W., and V. Schultz. 1982. Radloecology: Nuclear Energy and
the Environment, Vols. I and II. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
W1ck1ns J.F. 1983. Catches of large lyslanassld amphlpods 1n baited
traps at the Nuclear Energy Authority dump site during June 1979.
Deep-Sea Res. 30:83-86.
Williams D.I., and K.G. Van Levetzow. 1967. Larvae of Parapagurus
dlogenes (Whltelegge) and some related species (Decapoda, Anomura).
Crustaceana 12; 179-192.
Williams W.T. 1971. Principles of clustering. Ann. Rev. Ecol.
Syst. 2:303-326.
Wilson R.R., Jr. 1982. A comparison of ages estimated by the polarized
light method with ages estimated by vertebrae 1n females of
Coryphaenoldes acrolepls (Pisces: Macrourldae). Deep-Sea Res.
29:1373-1379.
Wilson R.R., Jr., and K.L. Smith, Jr. 1984. Effect of near-bottom
currents on detection of bait by the abyssal grenadier fishes
Coryphaenoldes spp., recorded in situ with a video camera on a free
vehicle. Mar. B1ol. 84:83-92.
WHson R.R., Jr., and R.S. Waples. 1983. Distribution, morphology, and
biochemical genetics of Coryphaenoldes armatus and C. yaqulnae (Pisces:
Macrourldae) 1n the central and eastern North Pacific. Deep-Sea Res.
30:1127-1145.
84
-------
Woodhead D.S. 1973. Levels of radioactivity 1n the marine environment
and the dose commitment to marine organisms. Pp. 499-523 In:
Radioactive Contamination of the Marine Environment, IAEA, Vienna.
Woodhead D.S., and R.J. Pentreath. 1983. A provisional assessment of
radiation regimes 1n deep ocean environments. Pp. 133-152 In: Wastes 1n
the Ocean, Vol. 3: Radioactive Wastes and the Ocean, P.K. Park,
D.R. Kester, I.W. Duedall, and B.H. Ketchum, eds. W1ley-Intersc1ence,
New York.
Yayanos A.A. Recovery and maintenance of live amphlpods at a pressure of
500 bars from an ocean depth of 5700 meters. Science 200:1056-1059.
Yayanos A.A., and J.C. Nevenzal. 1978. R1s1ng-part1cle hypothesis:
rapid ascent of matter from the deep ocean. Die Naturwlssenschaften 65.
Young O.R., and T.R. Folsom. 1973. Mussels and barnacles as Indicators
of the variation of Mn-54, Co-60 and Zn-65 1n the marine environment.
Pp. 633-648 In: Radioactive Contamination of the Marine Environment,
IAEA, Vienna.
85
-------
Table 1
METHODS FOR COLLECTION OF BENTHIC ECOLOGICAL DATA AT
ABYSSAL DEPTHS (22 pp.)
86
-------
METHODS FOR COLLECTION OF BENTHIC ECOLOGICAL DATA AT ABYSSAL DEPTHS
METHOD: USNEL Box Corer
FAUNAL TYPES ASSESSED: Sediment community; mlcroblota, melofauna,
macrofauna.
GENERAL NATURE OF DATA: Relatively Intact core samples of sediment and
contained organisms. Surface sediments and topwater may be more or less
disturbed, depending on sampling conditions.
SPATIAL SCALE OF SINGLE SAMPLE/DATUM: - 1/8 to 1/4 m2 horizontally;
subsampUng may yield Intrasample scales down to 1 cm2. Typical
vertical extent 1s 40-60 cm Into sediment.
MEASURABILITY OF INTERSAMPLE SCALES:
Spatial: Typically crude (± 100's of meters), with transponder
navigation Improvable to ± 10's of meters.
Temporal: Any scale possible.
COST OF APPARATUS: Circa $20,000 for box corer, $7,000 for plnger.
OPERATING COSTS: $2,000 - $4,000 per sample (at abyssal depths, about
6 h shlptlme required per deployment, and suitable oceanographlc vessels
run $10,000 $15,000 per day).
SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS:
Field: Ship with 12-ft A-frame, trawl winch with > 1/2 Inch wire
and precision depth recorder; 1 expert, 4 occasional helpers. Sample
collectable 1n broad range of sea states.
Laboratory: Dependent on data analysis.
DIFFICULTY/PROBLEMS OF DATA REDUCTION: Macrofauna - > 1 person-month per
box core to sort to species level. Melofauna and mlcroblota - technique-
dependent but species level determinations very time consuming (roughly
comparable to macrofauna).
ECOLOGICAL PARAMETERS ADDRESSABLE: Population density, species
diversity, blomass, population size structure for mlcroblota through
macrofauna, sediment characteristics.
87
-------
AMENABILITY OF DATA TO VARIOUS ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Broad at
population and community level; moderate to broad at Individual level (at
abyssal depths most limitations result from restricted sample sizes). By
far the most efficient quantitative sampling device for macrofauna and
microfauna 1n silt-clay sediments.
REFERENCES: Hessler and Jumars, 1974
Jumars and Eckman, 1983
Holme and Mclntyre, 1984
Burnett, 1981
Snider et al., 1984
88
-------
METHODS FOR COLLECTION OF BENTHIC ECOLOGICAL DATA AT ABYSSAL DEPTHS
METHOD: Anchor Dredge
FAUNAL TYPES ASSESSED: Infaunal, macrobenthos, and meiobenthos.
GENERAL NATURE OF DATA: Semiquantitatlve samples of sediment (to a depth
of -11 cm) and the contained fauna.
SPATIAL SCALE OF SINGLE SAMPLE/DATUM: Several square meters.
MEASURABILITY OF INTERSAMPLE SCALES:
Spatial: Crude - ± 0.5 km; transponder navigation may Improve
this to ± 10's to 100's of meters.
COST OF APPARATUS: Roughly $2,000 - $4,000 for dredge.
OPERATING COSTS: Roughly $1,700 - $3,000 for deployment (about 5 h of
shlptlme at abyssal depths).
SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS:
Field: Ship with trawl winch, precision depth recorder; 1 expert
and 2 occasional helpers.
Laboratory: Dependent on data analysis.
DIFFICULTY/PROBLEMS OF DATA REDUCTION: Dredge samples are
semlquantHatlve, providing only rough estimates of Infaunal densities.
Sorting of macrofaunal and melofaunal samples Is very time Intensive (>
one person month per sample).
ECOLOGICAL PARAMETERS ADDRESSABLE: Species composition, rough faunal
abundance, life history data, biochemical characteristics if faunal
densities are high enough, morphometic analyses.
AMENABILITY OF DATA TO VARIOUS ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Moderate at
population and community level; broad at individual level.
REFERENCES: Sanders et al., 1965
Holme and Mclntyre, 1984
89
-------
METHODS FOR COLLECTION OF BENTHIC ECOLOGICAL DATA AT ABYSSAL DEPTHS
METHOD: Ep1benth1c Sled
FAUNAl TYPES ASSESSED: Ep1benth1c macrofauna and megafauna and, to some
degree, Infaunal; typically to sizes > 1 mm.
GENERAL NATURE OF DATA: Semlquantltatlve concentrations of macrobenthlc
and megabenthlc animals.
SPATIAL SCALE OF SINGLE SAMPLE/DATUM: - 10's to 100's of square meters;
area sampled 1s difficult to quantify.
MEASURABILITY OF INTERSAMPLE SCALES:
Spatial: Crude - ± 0.5 km, transponder navigation may Improve
this to ± 10-100 m.
COST OF APPARATUS: Roughly $1,500 - $5,000 for sled; about $6,000 for
plnger (optional).
OPERATING COSTS: Roughly $1,700 - $3,000 per deployment (about 5 h of
shlptlme at abyssal depths).
SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS:
Field: Ship with trawl winch, precision depth recorder; 1 expert
and 2 occasional helpers.
Laboratory: Dependent on data analysis.
DIFFICULTY/PROBLEMS OF DATA REDUCTION: Variable efficiency of sleds
makes data poorly suited for most quantitative population analyses (e.g.,
analyses of abundance, spatial dispersion). Data reduction 1s time
consuming because of the small size, diversity, and poor taxonomlc status
of abyssal organisms.
ECOLOGICAL PARAMETERS ADDRESSABLE: Life history data (fecundity, size at
first reproduction, etc.), morphometrlc analyses, species composition,
possibly biochemical characteristics.
AMENABILITY OF DATA TO VARIOUS ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Broad at
Individual level, moderate to broad at population level.
REFERENCES: Hessler and Sanders, 1967
Grassle and Sanders, 1973
R1ce et al., 1982
Holme and Mclntyre, 1984
90
-------
METHODS FOR COLLECTION OF BENTHIC ECOLOGICAL DATA AT ABYSSAL DEPTHS
METHOD: Bottom Trawls
FAUNAL TYPES ASSESSED: Robust elements of eplbenthlc and demersal
megafauna. Typically, organisms <2cm 1n smallest dimension are retained
with very poor efficiency.
GENERAL NATURE OF DATA: Sem1quant1tat1ve concentrations of megafaunal
organisms, the more fragile of which are often damaged.
SPATIAL SCALE OF SINGLE SAMPLE/DATUM: - 100's to 10,000's of square
meters.
MEASURABILITY OF INTERSAMPLE SCALES:
Spatial: Crude: ± .5 to 1 km at abyssal depths; transponder
navigation may Improve this to ± ~ 100 m.
Temporal: Any scale possible.
COST OF APPARATUS: $2,000 - $26,000.
OPERATING COSTS: Roughly $2,000 - $8,000 per sample (I.e., about 6-12 h
shlptlme at abyssal depths).
SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS:
Field: Ship with A-frame or crane, trawl winch, and precision depth
recorder; 1 expert, 2-3 occasional helpers. Samples are collectable 1n
broad range of sea states (see Stein (1985) for ship requirements when
using over-sized trawling gear).
Laboratory: Dependent on data analysis.
DIFFICULTY/PROBLEMS OF DATA REDUCTION: Variable efficiency of trawls
makes trawl data poorly suited by themselves for most quantitative
population analyses. Trawl data can be effectively combined with
quantitative survey photography, however, to obtain megafaunal blomass
estimates. Data reduction (e.g., counting of various species) 1s
relatively rapid, although species Identification may be time consuming.
ECOLOGICAL PARAMETERS ADDRESSABLE: Megafaunal presence/absence, relative
abundance (between trawls), reproductive/physiological status of
organisms (e.g., size-fecundity relationships, tissue levels of
pollutants).
91
-------
AMENABILITY OF DATA TO VARIOUS ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Moderate at the
population level, broad at the Individual level.
REFERENCES: Haedrlch and Rowe, 1977
Muslck and Sulak, 1978
Haedrlch et al., 1980
Slebenaller et al., 1982
Smith and Hamilton, 1983
Holme and Mclntyre, 1984
Stein, 1985
92
-------
METHODS FOR COLLECTION OF BENTHIC ECOLOGICAL DATA AT ABYSSAL DEPTHS
METHOD: Bottom Towed Camera Sled
FAUNAL TYPES ASSESSED: Eplbenthic megafauna, lebenspuren, meter-scale
topography.
GENERAL NATURE OF DATA: Quantitative photographs of large epifauna and
bottom structures in natural orientations on the seafloor.
SPATIAL SCALE OF SINGLE SAMPLE/DATUM: 1/2 to ~8 m2
MEASURABILITY OF INTERSAMPLE SCALES:
Spatial: For adjacent photographs within a single deployment,
accurately determlnable (± 10's of cm) given overlapping photographic
frames. Between deployments, typically crude (± 100's of m); with
transponder navigation Improvable to ± to 10's of m.
Temporal: Any scale possible.
COST OF APPARATUS: Abyssal depth camera system, $15,000 - $40,000; sled
system, $6,000 - $10,000.
OPERATING COSTS: Roughly $2,000 - $8,000 per bottom transect
(I.e., about 6-16 h shlptlme for bottom runs of 800-3200 frames) at
abyssal depths.
SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS:
Field: Ship with A-frame/crane with trawl winch; 1-2 experts,
2 occasional helpers. Data collectable in broad range of weather
conditions.
Laboratory: Dependent on data analysis, but minimally a projection
system or dissecting microscope.
DIFFICULTY/PROBLEMS OF DATA REDUCTION: Species identification from
photographs often very difficult, although combined trawling and camera
sled surveys minimize this problem. All members of a population may not
be visible at sediment surface due to burrowing.
ECOLOGICAL PARAMETERS ADDRESSABLE: Megafaunal abundance, dispersion,
and, in some cases, size-frequency distributions; if combined with trawl
data, biomasses are obtainable; rudimentary behavior.
93
-------
AMENABILITY OF DATA TO VARIOUS ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Broad at
population level, moderate at Individual level.
REFERENCES: Grassle et al., 1975
Conan et al., 1981
Slbuet and Lawrence, 1981
R1ce et al., 1982
Smith and Hamilton, 1983
Holme and Mclntyre, 1984
94
-------
METHODS FOR COLLECTION OF BENTHIC ECOLOGICAL DATA AT ABYSSAL DEPTHS
METHOD: Near-Bottom Towed Camera
GENERAL NATURE OF DATA: On soft bottoms, this method 1s comparable to
Pogo Cameras 1n terms of costs, support requirements, and ecological
parameters addressable, except that data are more difficult to quantify
due to variable photographic distances. On hard or Irregular bottoms,
towed cameras are more desirable because of less chance of system loss or
damage.
REFERENCES: Lemcke et al., 1976
Corliss et al., 1979
Phillips et al., 1979
95
-------
METHODS FOR COLLECTION OF BENTHIC ECOLOGICAL DATA AT ABYSSAL DEPTHS
METHOD: Pogo Camera (ship lowered, with bottom contact switch)
FAUNAL TYPES ASSESSED: Ep1benth1c megafauna, lebenspuren.
GENERAL NATURE OF DATA: Quantitative photographs (especially if stereo
pairs used) of large epifauna and bottom structures in natural
orientations on the seafloor.
SPATIAL SCALE OF SINGLE SAMPLE/DATUM: Very broad; 0.25 to 10's of square
meters.
MEASURABILITY OF INTERSAMPLE SCALES:
Spatial: Within a deployment, very difficult to determine remotely
(use ± 10's of meters). Between deployments ± 100's of meters, with
transponder navigation improvable to ± 10's of meters.
COST OF APPARATUS: Abyssal depth camera system, $15,000 - $40,000
Camera frame, ~$1,000 - $4,000
Pinger (desirable), ~$2,000
OPERATING COSTS: Roughly $1,700 - $5,000 per bottom lowering at abyssal
depths (I.e., about 4-8 h of shiptime for lowerings of 100-800 frames).
SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS:
Field: Ship with A-frame/crane, hydrographic or trawl winch,
precision depth recorder; 1 expert, 1-2 occasional helpers. Data
collectable in broad range of weather conditions.
Laboratory: Dependent on data analysis, but minimally a projector
system or dissecting microscope.
DIFFICULTY/PROBLEMS OF DATA REDUCTION: Species identifications without
supplementary trawl data may be difficult; also, members of a population
may not be visible at the sediment surface due to burrowing.
ECOLOGICAL PARAMETERS ADDRESSABLE: Megafaunal abundance, small-scale
dispersion patterns, 1n some cases size-frequency distributions,
rudimentary behavior, biomass (with supplemental trawl data).
AMENABILITY OF DATA TO VARIOUS ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Moderate-to-broad
at population level, rudimentary at Individual level.
96
-------
REFERENCES: Bourne and Marshall, 1964
Mersey, 1967
Ohta, 1983, 1984
Holme and Mclntyre, 1984
97
-------
METHODS FOR COLLECTION OF BENTHIC ECOLOGICAL DATA AT ABYSSAL DEPTHS
METHOD: Remote Photographic Vehicles (e.g., EPAULARD)
FAUNAL TYPES ASSESSED: Ep1benth1c megafauna, lebenspuren.
GENERAL NATURE OF DATA: Quantitative photographs of large eplfauna and
bottom structures 1n natural orientations. Photograph surveys can be
conducted 1n specifiable patterns (with navigation uncertainty of 5-10 m)
on scales of kilometers. Specific sites can also be relocated.
SPATIAL SCALE OF SINGLE SAMPLE/DATUM: ~10 m2
INSURABILITY OF INTERSAMPLE SCALES:
Spatial: For adjacent photographs accurately determlnable within a
single deployment (± 10's of cm) 1f frames are overlapping. Within and
between runs, distances between photographs can be determined to ±
5-10 m using long-base, transponder navigation.
COST OF APPARATUS: To lease, circa $5,000 - $8,000 per day (Including
operating personnel).
OPERATING COSTS: Roughly $10,000 - $15,000 per day Including shiptlme
(on the order of 6,000 bottom photographs obtainable per day).
SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS:
Field: Relatively large oceanographlc vessel with stern A-frame
(10-ton cap.), bow thruster, crane, extensive deck space. Data
collectable 1n fairly broad range of conditions.
Laboratory: Dependent on data analysis, but minimally a projector
system or microscope for analysis of photographs.
DIFFICULTY/PROBLEMS OF DATA REDUCTION: Quality of photographs not as
high as for camera sleds because of vertical angle and greater photo
distance (minimum of ~2 m). Species Identifications from photographs
often are difficult, and all members of a population may not be visible
at the sediment surface due to burrowing.
ECOLOGICAL PARAMETERS ADDRESSABLE: Megafaunal abundance, dispersion,
and, 1n some cases, size-frequency distributions; blomasses are
obtainable 1f concomitant trawl data are available; rudimentary behavior.
98
-------
AMENABILITY OF DATA TO VARIOUS ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Broad at
population level, moderate at Individual level.
REFERENCES: Rowe and Slbuet, 1983
99
-------
METHODS FOR COLLECTION OF BENTHIC ECOLOGICAL DATA AT ABYSSAL DEPTHS
METHOD: Free-Vehicle Baited Camera
FAUNAL TYPES ASSESSED: Mobile scavenging megafauna.
GENERAL NATURE OF DATA: Time-series photographs of large, mobile animals
attracted to food falls. Time series may span a broad range of scales
(hours to months).
SPATIAL SCALE OF SINGLE SAMPLE/DATUM: 1 to ~10 m2
MEASURABILITY OF INTERSAMPLE SCALES:
Spatial: Between deployments, (± 0.5 km; with transponder
navigation Improvable to ± 10's of meters.
Temporal: Within a deployment, precisely measurable from seconds to
weeks.
COST OF APPARATUS: Abyssal depth camera system $15,000 - $40,000;
free-vehicle gear $6,300 - $14,000.
OPERATING COSTS: Roughly $600 - $1,200 (I.e., 2 h shlptlme) per
deployment.
SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS:
Field: Vessel with small crane; 1 expert, 1-2 occasional helpers.
Laboratory: Dependent on data analysis but minimally a projector
system and microscope for analyses of photographs.
DIFFICULTY/PROBLEMS OF DATA REDUCTION: Species Identifications from
photographs are difficult; areal abundances of attracted scavengers not
readily addressable. Data reduction, however, 1s relatively rapid (on
the order of minutes/photograph).
ECOLOGICAL PARAMETERS ADDRESSABLE: Presence and species composition of
animals attracted to food falls at the seafloor, rudimentary behavior,
some size-frequency distributions.
AMENABILITY OF DATA TO VARIOUS ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Moderate at
population and Individual level.
100
-------
REFERENCES: Dayton and Messier, 1972
Shutts, 1975
Isaacs and Schwartlose, 1975
Rowe and Slbuet, 1983
Wilson and Smith, 1984
Smith, 1985
Margrave, 1985
101
-------
METHODS FOR COLLECTION OF BENTHIC ECOLOGICAL DATA AT ABYSSAL DEPTHS
METHOD: Free-Vehicle Baited Traps and Set Lines
FAUNAL TYPES ASSESSED: Mobile scavenging megafauna and macrofauna.
GENERAL NATURE OF DATA: Collection of scavenging animals (typically
amphlpods and fish) capable of entering traps, often 1n very large
numbers.
SPATIAL SCALE OF SINGLE SAMPLE/DATUM: Not readily determined.
MEASURABILITY OF INTERSAMPLE SCALES:
Spatial: Between deployments ± 0.5 km; with transponder
navigation Improvable to ± 10's of meters.
COST OF APPARATUS: Trap systems $100 - $15,000; free-vehicle gear $2,000
- $14,000.
OPERATING COSTS: Roughly $600 - $1,200 (I.e., 2 h shlptlme) per
deployment.
SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS:
Field: Vessel with small crane desirable, although not necessary;
1 expert, 1-2 occasional helpers.
Laboratory: Dependent on data analysis.
DIFFICULTY/PROBLEMS OF DATA REDUCTION: Traps usually collect biased
samples 1n terms of animal size and species composition.
ECOLOGICAL PARAMETERS ADDRESSABLE: Species composition, life table data
(e.g., fecundity, size at first reproduction), feeding patterns,
biochemical characteristics (e.g., tissue levels of radlonucHdes),
vertical distributions, morphometrlc analyses.
AMENABILITY OF DATA TO VARIOUS ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Broad at
Individual level, moderate at population level.
REFERENCES: Shutts, 1975
Hessler et al., 1978
Yayanos, 1978
Thurston, 1979
Ingram and Hessler, 1983
Rowe and Slbuet, 1983
102
-------
METHODS FOR COLLECTION OF BENTHIC ECOLOGICAL DATA AT ABYSSAL DEPTHS
METHOD: Free-Vehicle Grab Resplrometry (In. situ)
FAUNAL TYPES ASSESSED: Sediment community (microbes to macrofauna).
GENERAL NATURE OF DATA: Oxygen uptake rates (convertible to energy
respiration rates) for small, enclosed portions of the seafloor, as well
as core sample (Including Infauna) of study plots.
SPATIAL SCALE OF SINGLE SAMPLE/DATUM: ~0.05 m2
MEASURABILITY OF INTERSAMPLE SCALES:
Spatial: Crude ± 0.5 km between deployments (transponder
navigation may Improve this to ± 10's of meters).
Temporal: Measurements can be collected over time scales of hours
to weeks.
COST OF APPARATUS: Very high, circa $60,000 per free-vehicle system.
OPERATING COSTS: Roughly $1,700 - $2,500 per deployment; assuming
long-term operation of system without equipment loss (losses are,
however, common and costly).
SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS:
Field: Large oceanographlc vessel with A-frame or crane; extensive
personnel support (2-3 experts and 2-3 occasional helpers).
Laboratory: Extensive laboratory maintenance required to keep
system operational.
DIFFICULTY/PROBLEMS OF DATA REDUCTION: Data reduction 1s relatively
simple. Major time expenditures come during cruise preparation, data
acquisition, and equipment maintenance.
ECOLOGICAL PARAMETERS ADDRESSABLE: Community respiration rates,
population densities, species structure, blomass, size-frequency
distributions, sediment characteristics.
AMENABILITY OF DATA TO VARIOUS ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Broad at
population and community level, moderate at Individual level. Biases
resulting from hydrodynamlc artifacts, etc., difficult to assess.
103
-------
REFERENCES: Smith, 1978
Smith and White, 1982
Santschl et a!., 1983
Smith and H1nga, 1983
104
-------
METHODS FOR COLLECTION OF BENTHIC ECOLOGICAL DATA AT ABYSSAL DEPTHS
METHOD: Ba1ted-trap Resplrometry
FAUNAL TYPES ASSESSED: Scavenging megafauna and macrofauna.
GENERAL NATURE OF DATA: Oxygen uptake rates and excretion rates for
animals enclosed 1n resplrometers.
SPATIAL SCALE OF SINGLE SAMPLE/DATUM: n/a
MEASURABILITY OF INTERSAMPLE SCALES:
Spatial: n/a
Temporal: n/a
COST OF APPARATUS: Resplrometer, $10,000 - $20,000; free-vehicle gear,
$2,000 - $14,000.
OPERATING COSTS: Dependent on mode of deployment (I.e., deployed from
submersible or as a free vehicle) - $600 - $4,000 per deployment.
SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS:
Field: Small oceanographlc vessel; fairly extensive personnel
support (2-3 experts).
Laboratory: Roughly comparable to those for free-vehicle grab
resplrometry.
DIFFICULTY/PROBLEMS OF DATA REDUCTION: Data reduction 1s relatively
simple. Major time expenditures come during cruise preparation, data
acquisition, and equipment maintenance.
ECOLOGICAL PARAMETERS ADDRESSABLE: Individual respiration rates for
larger megafauna (e.g., rattalls); group-averaged respiration rates for
smaller scavengers (e.g., lyslanassld amphlpods).
AMENABILITY OF DATA TO VARIOUS ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Relatively broad
at Individual level, although data are potentially subject to a number of
poorly quantified artifacts related to containment, altered flow
conditions, etc.
REFERENCES: Smith and Hessler, 1974
Smith and Baldwin, 1982
105
-------
METHODS FOR COLLECTION OF BENTHIC ECOLOGICAL DATA AT ABYSSAL DEPTHS
METHOD: Immunoassay of gut contents
FAUNAL TYPES ASSESSED: Macrofauna through megafauna as predators,
meiofauna through megafauna as prey species.
GENERAL NATURE OF DATA: Presence/absence of target taxa 1n gut of
predator.
SPATIAL SCALE OF SINGLE SAMPLE/DATUM: n/a
MEASURABILITY OF INTERSAMPLE SCALES:
Spatial: n/a
Temporal: n/a
COST OF APPARATUS: ~$5,000, after antibodies have been made.
OPERATING COSTS: ~$200/ant1body.
SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS:
Field: Freezer space for collected predator species.
Laboratory: See Feller et al., 1979.
DIFFICULTY/PROBLEMS OF DATA REDUCTION: Antlsera must be prepared from
extracts of taxa of Interest as prey Items.
ECOLOGICAL PARAMETERS ADDRESSABLE: Qualitative food-web relationships.
AMENABILITY OF DATA TO VARIOUS ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: n/a
REFERENCES: Feller, et al., 1979
Feller and Gallagher, 1982
Feller, 1984
Feller et al., 1985
106
-------
METHODS FOR COLLECTION OF BENTHIC ECOLOGICAL DATA AT ABYSSAL DEPTHS
METHOD: Research Submersible
FAUNAL TYPES ASSESSED: Megafauna - mlcroblota
GENERAL NATURE OF DATA: Data, both experimental and descriptive, can be
collected over a broad range of scales. Greatest advantage 1s ability to
precisely locate, relocate, and manipulate sampling devices and
experiments on the seafloor.
SPATIAL SCALE OF SINGLE SAMPLE/DATUM: Core samples up to 0.04 m2;
photographs up to 10's of m2.
MEASURABILITY OF INTERSAMPLE SCALES:
Spatial: Scales ranging from cm to km obtainable with high
precision.
Temporal: Precisely located time series data readily obtainable.
COST OF APPARATUS: n/a
OPERATING COSTS: Roughly $17,000 per day (or dive) for the research
submersible ALVIN and Its support ship ATLANTIS II.
SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS:
Field: Depends on field program.
DIFFICULTY/PROBLEMS OF DATA REDUCTION: Availability of research
submerslbles with a depth capability greater than 4,000 m 1s extremely
limited. At present, the U.S. Navy's SEA CLIFF Is the only submersible
with an abyssal depth rating that 1s available to U.S. scientists.
ECOLOGICAL PARAMETERS ADDRESSABLE: An extremely broad array of
ecological parameters can be characterized through submersible studies
(e.g., Rowe, 1983; Rowe et al., 1984).
REFERENCES: Helrtzler and Grassle, 1976
Rowe and Slbuet, 1983
107
-------
METHODS FOR COLLECTION OF BENTHIC ECOLOGICAL DATA AT ABYSSAL DEPTHS
METHOD: Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs) e.g., RUM
FAUNAL TYPES ASSESSED: Megafauna - mlcroblota.
GENERAL NATURE OF DATA: Data, both experimental and descriptive, can be
collected over a relatively broad range of scales (centimeters to
kilometers). ROVs provide the capability of 1n situ manipulation, but
real-time observational capabilities are Inferior to those of manned
submerslbles.
SPATIAL SCALE OF SINGLE SAMPLE/DATUM: Core samples up to 0.04 m2;
photographs up to 10's of m2.
MEASURABILITY OF INTERSAMPLE SCALES:
Spatial: Scales ranging from cm to km obtainable with high
precision.
Temporal: Precisely located time-series data readily obtainable.
COST OF APPARATUS: n/a
OPERATING COSTS: Roughly $5,000 - $15,000 per day (?).
SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS:
Field: Depends on field program.
DIFFICULTY/PROBLEMS OF DATA REDUCTION: The scientific availability of
ROVs with high manipulative capabilities and abyssal depth ratings
appears to be limited to nonexistent. Scrlpps Institution of
Oceanography 1s currently developing an abyssal-depth ROV (RUM III).
ECOLOGICAL PARAMETERS ADDRESSABLE: A broad array of parameters are
addressable.
REFERENCES: Thistle, 1978, 1979
Jumars, 1978
108
-------
Table 2. THE AMOUNT OF TISSUE, IN GRAMS WET WEIGHT, REQUIRED TO MEASURE, USING STANDARD TECHNIQUES, THE MAXIMUM EXPECTED BACKGROUND LEVELS OF THE LISTED
RADIONUCLIDES IN NINE MAJOR BENTHIC TAXA FROM THE NORTH ATLANTIC AND NORTH PACIFIC. NO = NOT DETECTABLE; ? = NUCLIDE ACTIVITY NOT CALCULABLE;
VALUES IN PARENTHESES ARE SAMPLE REQUIREMENTS FOR DETECTION OF THE MINIMUM EXPECTED BACKGROUND ACTIVITY, IF THE REQUIREMENTS DIFFER FROM THOSE
FOR MAXIMUM EXPECTED ACTIVITY. SEE APPENDIX 1 FOR A MORE COMPLETE EXPLANATION.
o
UD
SPONGES
N.At. N.Pac.
? ?
QQ60 7 7
Ni63 ? ?
Sr*> ? ?
Cs137 ND ?
Pu239 & 12 ND
Pu240 (ND)
Am241 ? ?
Min sample
for Pu
analysis 12
regardless
of activity
COELENTERATES POLYCHAETES
N.At. N.Pac. N.At. N.Pac.
? ? 910 ND
? ? 10 ?
(907)
7777
ND ND ? ?
450 ND 230 230
(1802) (907) (907)
45 ND 23 23
(ND)
? ? ND ?
45 23
CRUSTACEANS
N.At. N.Pac.
? 640
160 ?
(640)
7 7
ND ND
160 ND
(640)
16 ND
(ND)
? ND
16
OPHIUROIDS
N.At. N.Pac.
? 160
39 ?
(160)
7 7
ND ND
39 ND
(155)
ND ND
? ND
4
HOLOTHUROIDS ECHINOIDS ASTEROIDS FISH
N.At. N.Pac. N.At. N.Pac. N.At. N.Pac. N.At. N
? 870 ? 120 ? 290 2600
220 ? 29 ? 74 ? 310
(870) (120) (300) (ND?)
?????? 780
(ND?)
?????? ND
220 ND 29 ND 74 ND 310
(870) (ND) (ND) (1250)
ND ? ? ? ND ND 31
(ND)
ND ND ? ? ? ? ND
22 3 7 31
.Pac.
2600
7
7
ND
310
(NO)
ND
7
-------
Table 3. THE PROBABILITY OF DETECTING A 50% CHANGE IN TOTAL MACROFAUNAL
ABUNDANCE, USING THE T-TEST AT a = 0.05, GIVEN THE INDICATED
NUMBER OF REPLICATE 0.25 m2 BOX-CORE SAMPLES.
Study area
Climax II,
CNP
Demerera
Abyssal
Reference
Hessler and
Jumars, 1974
Sibuet et al . ,
1984
Background
abundance
(X ± 1 SE)
28.6 ± 2.0
123 ± 12
No. of
replicates
3
5
4
5
Probability
of
detection
-0.80
-0.95
-0.76
-0.85
Plain -
Sta. A
-0.95
Demerera
Abyssal
Plain -
Sta. B
Sibuet et al.,
1984
58.9 + 4.6
5
6
10
-0.70
-0.80
-0.95
110
-------
APPENDIX A
ESTIMATES OF AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF POTENTIAL LOW-LEVEL
WASTE RADIONUCLIDES IN DEEP-SEA ORGANISMS AND
THE SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS FOR THEIR DETECTION
Compiled by
T. M. C. Present
A-l
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION A-3
TABLE 1. MEASURED AND CALCULATED AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS
OF RADIONUCLIDES IN DEEP-SEA ORGANISMS A-6
Introductory Notes and Definitions A-6
Part 1: Iron-55 A-9
Part 2: Cobalt-60 A-15
Part 3: N1ckel-63 A-23
Part 4: Stront1um-90 A-28
Part 5: Ces1um-l37 A-33
Part 6: Plutonlum-239,240 A-42
Part 7: Amer1c1um-24l A-49
Footnotes A-54
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF MEASURED AND CALCULATED AMBIENT
CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN DEEP-SEA
ORGANISMS AND SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS FOR THEIR
DETECTION A-63
Introductory Notes and Definitions A-63
Part 1: Iron-55 A-64
Part 2: Cobalt-60 A-67
Part 3: N1ckel-63 A-70
Part 4: Stront1um-90 A-73
Part 5: Ces1um-l37 A-76
Part 6: Pluton1um-239. 240 A-79
Part 7: Amer1c1um-241 A-82
Footnotes A-85
SUMMARY A-87
LITERATURE CITED A-89
A-2
-------
INTRODUCTION
One objective of monitoring the blotlc community at the site of
low-level radioactive waste disposal 1s to determine the extent to which
organisms are being contaminated by waste nuclldes. For determining 1f
b1ocontam1nat1on Is taking place as a result of disposal activities, 1t
1s necessary to have estimates of the background or ambient
concentrations of potential low-level waste radlonucHdes present 1n
organisms prior to waste disposal, and to Initiate a sampling program
that will enable detection of changes 1n radlonucllde concentrations 1n
the biota. The purpose of this report 1s to provide Initial estimates of
(a) ambient concentrations of potential low-level waste radlonuclldes 1n
various deep-sea taxa, and (b) the sampling requirements for measurement
of ambient concentrations of radlonuclldes 1n the biota and, hence, for
detection of changes 1n those concentrations.
The background levels of radlonuclldes 1n deep-sea organisms can be
estimated 1n at least two ways. First, estimates can be gotten directly
by measuring radlonucllde concentrations 1n various deep-sea organisms.
This 1s the Ideal approach, provided 1t 1s technically, Iog1st1cally, and
financially possible. Alternatively, estimates can be obtained
Indirectly, through simple calculations, provided that Information 1s
available on the concentrations of the various nuclldes In the organism's
environment, as well as on the degree to which particular organisms
concentrate nuclldes 1n their tissues relative to their environment.
A-3
-------
Table 1 1s a summary of estimates of the ambient concentrations of
potential waste radlonuclldes 1n various deep-sea taxa obtained by both
of these methods. The nuclldes considered are: 1ron-55, cobalt-60,
n1ckel-63, stront1um-90, ceslum-137, pluton1um-239, 240, and
amerlclum-241. The deep-sea taxa considered are: sponges,
coelenterates, asteroids, echlnolds, ophlurolds, holothurlans,
polychaetes, Crustacea, and fishes. The table 1s divided Into seven
parts, one part for each of the nuclldes considered. Within each part,
published measurements of the nucllde's concentration 1n any deep-sea
representatives of each taxa 1n both the North Atlantic and North Pacific
are summarized 1n Section 1, Measured Ambient Concentrations 1n Deep-Sea
Organisms. In Section 2 of each part, Calculated Ambient Concentrations
1n Deep-Sea Organisms, published measurements of the nucllde's
concentrations 1n North Atlantic and North Pacific sediment and water
collected at >1000 meters are summarized, along with published estimates
of the accumulation factors (concentration factors and transfer factors)
that either shallow or deep-dwelling representatives of each taxa exhibit
for that nucllde. At the end of Section 2, estimates of the ambient
concentration of the nucllde 1n each taxon, calculated from the
sediment/water concentration data and accumulation-factor data, are
presented.
Table 2 summarizes the ranges of measured and calculated estimates
of ambient concentrations of each nucllde 1n each taxon, and provides an
estimate of the amount of tissue from organisms 1n each taxon that would
A-4
-------
have to be analyzed for the minimum estimated ambient concentration to be
detected 1f detection 1s possible with standard radloanalytlcal
procedures.
Measured concentrations of nuclldes 1n deep-sea organisms,
sediments, and water are reported only 1f they reflect background or
fallout levels of nuclldes. Concentrations measured 1n contaminated
samples from various dumpsltes are not Included 1n this compilation. The
errors associated with the measured concentrations of the nuclldes 1n
biota, sediments, and water are not reported 1n Table 1. At the low
levels of radioactivity typical of background levels 1n the blotlc and
abiotic environment, most of the uncertainty 1n a measurement 1s due to
counting error (U.S. EPA, 1984). When provided 1n the original reports,
95X confidence limits of count rates range from 2% to >100%, with typical
values of ± 5% to ± 40%.
No attempt was made to estimate the error associated with calculated
estimates of ambient concentrations of nuclldes 1n deep-sea organisms or
that associated with estimated sample size required for radloanalysls.
A-5
-------
Table 1. MEASURES AND CALCULATED AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF
RADIONUCLIDES IN DEEP-SEA ORGANISMS.
Introductory Notes and Definitions
(1) Numbers 1n parentheses refer to footnotes that are listed at the
end of the table and which provide references for detailed
Information concerning the data.
(11) In reporting concentration factors and transfer factors, the
following notation 1s used: CF . = ratio of concentration of
nucllde 1n unit wet weight of organism to concentration 1n unit
weight water; CF. = ratio of concentration of nucllde 1n unit
dry weight of organism to concentration 1n unit weight water;
TF . = ratio of concentration of nucllde 1n unit wet weight of
organism to concentration 1n unit wet weight of sediment; TF
dry
= ratio of concentration of nucllde 1n unit dry weight of organism
to concentration 1n unit dry weight of sediment. Unless otherwise
noted, all CFs and TFs refer to unit weight of whole organisms.
(111) For both the North Atlantic and North Pacific, total ranges of
concentrations of nuclldes 1n each taxon were calculated as
follows:
(a) minimum concentration the smallest of the following values
minus minimum of al1
of nucllde 1n water
minus minimum of all reported CF x minimum concentration
OJl
minimum of all reported CF. x minimum concentration of
nucllde 1n water x dry weight/wet weight conversion factor
OR
minimum of all reported TF , x minimum concentration of
nucllde 1n wet sediment
A-6
-------
minimum of all reported TF x minimum concentration of
nucllde 1n dry sediment x dry weight/wet weight conversion
factor
(b) maximum concentration = the largest of the following values:
maximum of all reported CF . x maximum concentration of
nucllde 1n water
OR
maximum of all reported CF. x maximum concentration of
nucllde 1n water x dry weight/wet weight conversion factor
OR
maximum of all reported TF , x maximum concentration of
nucllde 1n wet sediment
OR
maximum of all reported TF. x maximum concentration of
nucllde 1n dry sediment x dry weight/wet weight conversion
factor.
(1v) Dry weight/wet weight conversions used:
(a) The dry weight/wet weight conversion factors used for
polychaetes, coelenterates, and echlnoderms were derived from
data for deep-sea organisms given 1n Rowe (1983) and are as
follows:
polychaetes = 0.1310 (=shell-free dry wt/total wet wt;
Table IV)
coelenterates = 0.0522 (=shell-free dry wt/total wet wt;
Table IV)
asteroids = 0.3930 (=1 - mean water content; Table V)
echlnolds = 0.2910 (=1 - mean water content; Table V)
ophlurolds = 0.5510 (=1 - mean water content; Table V)
holothurlans = 0.1515 (=1 - mean water content; Table V)
A-7
-------
(b) The dry weight/wet weight conversion factor used for sponges
was derived from data given 1n Vlnogradov (1953) and equals
0.1638 (=1 - mean water content of porlfera; Table 100)
(c) The dry weight/wet weight conversion factors used for
Crustacea and fishes are as follows:
Crustacea 0.2073 (=1 - mean water content of
Eurythenes gryllus; unpublished data from
C. Ingram)
fishes (whole) = 0.1753 (=1 - mean water content of
Coryphaenoldes armatus; Smith, 1978)
fishes (muscle)= 0.1628 (=1 - mean water content of £.
armatus; unpublished data from R. Wilson).
(v) For both the North Atlantic and North Pacific, the ranges of
concentrations of nuclldes 1n designated subsets of various taxa
(I.e., deposit-feeding polychaetes, amphlpod crustaceans, gadlform
fishes) were calculated as for total ranges, but only the CFs and
TFs of appropriate organisms were used 1n the calculations.
Organisms used 1n the calculations 1n each case are Identified 1n
the footnotes.
(v1) For both the North Atlantic and North Pacific, the ranges of
concentrations of nuclldes 1n deep-sea representatives of each
taxon were calculated as for total ranges, but only the CFs and
TFs of species, genera, or families that occur at >3000 meters
depth were used 1n the calculations. Organisms used 1n the
calculations 1n each case are Identified 1n the footnotes.
(v11) 1 Bq/g = 27 pC1/g.
A-8
-------
Table 1. MEASURED AND CALCULATED AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF
RADIONUCLIDES IN DEEP-SEA ORGANISMS. Part 1: IRON-55.
1.1 Fe55 - Measured ambient concentrations 1n deep-sea organisms.
All values expressed 1n Bq/g weight of whole organism unless
otherwise noted.
Taxon
Sponges :
Coelenterates :
Asteroids :
Ech1no1ds :
Oph1uro1ds:
Holothurlans :
Polychaetes:
Crustaceans :
Fishes:
North Atlantic
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Macrourlds (muscle)
North Pacific
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
9.5xlO
-4(1)
Miscellaneous:
None
None
A-9
-------
Table 1, Part 1, Continued
1.2 Fe55 - Calculated ambient concentrations 1n deep-sea organisms
1.2.1 Fe55 - Ambient concentrations 1n the environment. All sediment
concentration values expressed 1n Bq/g dry sediment unless
otherwise noted. All water concentration values expressed
1n Bq/g water unless otherwise noted.
Ocean Sediment Concentrations Deep-Water Concentrations
North Atlantic:
>4.01xlO-3(3) None
North Pacific:
3.84xlO-4 - 2.73xlO-2(4) 5.96xlQ-7(5)
A-10
-------
Table 1 , Part 1, Continued
1.2.2 Fe^5 _ Derived concentration factors and transfer factors of
nuclldes In organisms
Ocean
Sediment Concentrations
Deep-Water Concentrations
Sponges:
Coelenterates:
Asteroids:
Ech1no1ds:
Oph1uro1ds:
HolothuMans :
Fishes:
None
None
Marthasterlas gladalls, CFdry= 60(7)
Echlnaster seposltus, CFdry 90(7)
Paracentrotus llvldus, CFdry = 29fl(7)
Arbada Hxula, CFdry = 310(7)
Sphaerechlnus granularls, CFdry =570(7)
Ophloderma longlcauda. CFdry = 70(7)
Holothuria tubulosa.
= 40
(7)
Polychaetes: Nereis d1verslcolor. TF. = .009 .14
(6)
Crustaceans: Decapod, Crangon crangon. CF , = 3000
,0)
(8)
Mesopelaglc fish muscle, CFwet = 290V
None
A-ll
-------
Table 1, Part 1, Continued
1.2.3 Fe55 - Calculated ranges of ambient concentrations 1n deep-sea
organisms. All values expressed 1n Bq/g wet weight of
whole organism unless otherwise noted. I.D. -
Insufficient data to calculate values.
Sponges:
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Coelenterates:
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Asteroids:
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: 1.41xlO~5 - 2.11xlO~5
range 1n deep-sea taxa: 1.41x10 '
Ech1no1ds:
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: 5.03xlO~5 - 9.89xlO~5
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Oph1uro1ds:
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
A-12
-------
Table 1 , Part 1 , Continued
North Pacific total range: 2.30xlO~5
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Holothurlans:
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: 3.61xlO"6
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Polychaetes:
North Atlantic - total range: 4.73xlO~6 >7.35xlO"5
range 1n deposit feeders: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: 4.73xlO~6 - >7.35xlO~5^
North Pacific - total range: 4.59xlO~7 - 5.00xlO~4
range 1n deposit feeders: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: 4.59xlO~ - S.OOxlCf ^ '
Crustaceans:
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n amphlpods: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: 1.79x!Cf3
range 1n amphlpods: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Fishes:
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range In gadlforms: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
A-13
-------
Table 1, Part 1, Continued
North Pacific - total range: 1.73x1Cf4 (1n muscle)
range 1n gadlforms: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
A-14
-------
Table 1. MEASURED AND CALCULATED AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIOES IN
DEEP-SEA ORGANISMS. Part 2: COBALT-60.
2.1
- Measured ambient concentrations 1n deep-sea organisms.
All values expressed In Bq/g wet weight of whole organism unless
otherwise noted. *Ind1cate the minimum detectable activities
(MDA's) for samples 1n which CO60 was sought but not detected.
Taxon
Fishes:
North Atlantic
Mixed (cumaceans, amphlpods, copepods),
-1 -?*n?i
<2.26x10 - <6.92x10 v ;
Amphlpods (1ncl. Eurythenes gryllus).
_T -~\*C\?\
<3.26x10 - <6.40x10 v '
Coryphaenoldes armatus (flesh)
-i* -3*nT^
<1.11x10 - <1.48x10 ( }
£. armatus (various body sections
to whole organisms),
_4* -i*n?^
<1.11x10 -
-------
Table 1, Part 2, Continued
Taxon North Atlantic
North Pac1f1c
Miscellaneous:
Mixed eplfauna
(whole amphlpods, cumaceans, ophlurolds),
<3.29xlO~2 - <5.25xlO~2**12^
Deep-sea "nekton,"
2.22xlO"4 - 9.25xlO~4Bq/g dry(14),
None
5.55x10 4 Bq/g dry (md)(15)
Deep-sea "nekton,"
5.55xlO~4 Bq/g dry
Deep-sea "benthos,"
6.29xlO"4 - 7.77xlO"3 Bq/g
A-16
-------
Table 1 , Part 2, Continued
2.2 Co&0 - Calculated ambient concentrations 1n deep-sea organisms
2.2.1 Co - Ambient concentrations 1n the environment. All sediment
concentration values expressed 1n Bq/g sediment unless
otherwise noted. All water concentration values for samples
1n which Co^O was sought but not detected.
Ocean _ Sediment Concentrations _ Deep-Water Concentrations
North Atlantic: _TMRI -i*
4.84x10 4.19x10 Ub; <1 . 11x10 <3.7xlO
5.18xlO"4 - 5.55xlO"4(17) (Interfadal water)
-4*
<2. 96x10 - <7. 77x10
North Pacific:
None None
A-17
-------
Table 1, Part 2, Continued
2.2.2 Co&0 - Concentration factors and transfer factors of nuclldes 1n
organisms
Sponges: None
Coelenterates: None
Asteroids:
Ech1no1ds :
Oph1uro1ds:
Holothurlans:
Polychaetes:
Fishes:
Asterlas rubens. CF . = 3.9 (22)
wet
Marathasterlas glac1a!1s. CF_,_.. = 100
(7)
dry
Echlnaster seposltus. CF . - 420
(7)
Paracentrotus 11v1dus. CF
Arbada llxula. CF
dry
dry
.350
310
(7)
(7)
Sphaerechlnus granularls. CF. = 730
(7)
Ophloderma longlcauda. CF. = 220
(7)
Unidentified species, CF. = 100
" /
(23)
Holothurla tubulosa. CF
.
Nereis japonlca. CF . = 6-7, TF , = .045 - .055
wet e
Arenlcola marina. CF , = 335
(20)
Neanthens vlrens. CF , . = 343, TF .
- - wet wet
2.25
(113)
Crustaceans: Decapods, various spp. CF
dry
12 - 140
(24)
Decapods, various spp. CF = 5 - 520
(25)
Decapod, Crangon crangon. CF
- 700
<8>
Decapod, CUbanarlus vlrescens. CF . = 57 - 520
Decapod, Crangon vulgarls. CF , = 37^10^
Decapod, Cardnus maenas. CF . = 30V
Decapod, Leander padflus. CFwet = 5 -
(91)
Various spp., CFdr = < .1 - 400
Various spp., CF , = 1.2 - 7.r
Gadlform, Merlucclus capensls. CF
(24)
.
=150
(26)
A-18
-------
Table 1, Part 2, Continued
Hesopelaglc fish muscle, CF , 3Cr ^
wet
ChasmUhthvs golusus. CF . = 2.5 - 5.
/->
Brerooha tyrannus. CF , = 7.r '
Sebastes nlvosus. CF . = 4.2
WPT
ErvnnU japonlca. CF 4.8
Serlola qu1nquerad1ata. CF .
wet
ParaHchthvs ollvaceus. CFwet
Glrella punctata. CF = >2 -
A-19
-------
Table 1, Part 2, Continued
2.2.3 Co&0 - Calculated ranges of ambient concentrations 1n deep-sea
organisms. All values expressed 1n Bq/g wet weight of
whole organism. 1.0. - Insufficient data to calculate
values. All reported ranges calculated using the smallest
(for range minimum) and largest (for range maximum)
minimum detectable activities (MDA's) reported for
deep-water samples from the North Atlantic.
Sponges:
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: 1.0.
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range In deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Coelenterates:
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Asteroids:
North Atlantic - total range: <1.15xlO~3 - <1.28xlO~1 (30)
range 1n deep-sea taxa: <1.15xlO"3 - <3.05xlO~2
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Ech1no1ds:
North Atlantic - total range: <2.67xlO~2 - <1.65xlO~1
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
-------
Table 1, Part 2, Continued
Oph1uro1ds:
North Atlantic - total range: <3.59xl(f2 - <9.42xlCf2 (30)
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
HolothuMans:
North Atlantic - total range: <4.48xlO~3 - <1.41xl(T2 (30)
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Polychaetes:
North Atlantic - total range: 3.33xlO~5 2.25xlO~2 (27);
minimum based on lowest MDA 1n wet sediments = <1.17xlO~
range 1n deposit feeders: <9.92xlO~2 <2.60xlO"1 (28)
range 1n deep-sea taxa: 3.33xlO~5 S.SOxlCf4 (29);
minimum based on lowest MDA 1n wet sediments = <1.17x10"
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range 1n deposit feeders: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Crustaceans:
North Atlantic - total range: <7.36xlO~4 - <5.44xlO"1 (30)
range 1n amphlpods: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range 1n amphlpods: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
A-21
-------
Table 1, Part 2, Continued
Fishes:
North Atlantic - total range: <1.95xlO~9 - <5.45xl(T2(31);
range 1n gadlforms: <2.92xlCf6 - <2.04xlO~2 (31)
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range 1n gadlforms: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
A-22
-------
Table 1. MEASURED AND CALCULATED AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF
RADIONUCLIDES IN DEEP-SEA ORGANISMS. Part 3: NICKEL-63.
3.1
_ Measured ambient concentrations 1n deep-sea organisms.
All values expressed in Bq/g wet weight of the whole
organism unless otherwise noted. *Indicate the minimum
detectable activities (MDA's) for samples in which Ni63
was sought but not detected.
Taxon
North Atlantic
North Pacific
Sponges :
Coelenterates :
Asteroids :
None
None
None
None
None
None
Echinoids: (whole)
Ophiuroids: (whole)
Holothurians: (whole)
Not detectable;
MOA not given
Not detectable;
MDA not given
.(33)
(33)
Not detectable;
MDA not given
.(33)
Polychaetes: (whole) Not detectable;
MDA not given
.(33)
Crustaceans: (whole) Not detectable;
MDA not given
.(33)
Fishes:
Mlscellaneous:
Macrourids (various body sections to
(33)
whole organisms), Not detectable;^ '
MDA not given
Coryphaenoldes armatus (muscle)
<7.03xlO~3* - <7.78xlO"3 Bq/g wet(
"Composite shellf1sh"(35)
3.34xlO"4 Bq/g dry
None
None
None
None
None
None
A-23
-------
Table 1, Part 3, Continued
3.2 N163 - Calculated ambient concentrations 1n deep-sea organisms
3.2.1 N1&3 _ Ambient concentrations 1n the environment
Ocean Sediment Concentrations Deep-Hater Concentrations
North Atlantic: None None
North Pacific: None None
A-24
-------
Table 1, Part 3, Continued
3.2.2 N163 Concentration factors and transfer factors of nuclldes 1n
organisms
Sponges:
Coelenterates:
Asteroids:
Echlnolds:
Ophlurolds:
Holothurlans:
Polychaetes:
Crustaceans:
Fishes:
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
A-25
-------
Table 1 , Part 3, Continued
3.2.3 N1 _ Calculated ranges of ambient concentrations 1n deep-sea
organisms unless otherwise noted. All values expressed 1n
Bq/g wet weight of whole organism. I.D. - Insufficient data
to calculate values.
Sponges:
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Coelenterates :
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Asteroids :
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range In deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Ech1no1ds:
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Oph1uro1ds:
North Atlantic total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
A-26
-------
Table 1, Part 3, Continued
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Holothurlans:
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Polychaetes:
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n deposit feeders: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range 1n deposit feeders: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Crustaceans:
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n amphlpods: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range 1n amphlpods: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Fishes:
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n gadlforms: I.D.
range In deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range 1n gadlforms: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
A-27
-------
Table 1. MEASURED AND CALCULATED AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF
RADIONUCLIDES IN DEEP-SEA ORGANISMS. Part 4: STRONTIUM-90.
4.1
Sr90 - Measured ambient concentrations In deep-sea organisms. All
values expressed 1n Bq/g wet weight of whole organism unless
otherwise noted.
Taxon
North Atlantic
North Pacific
Sponges:
Coelenterates:
Asteroids:
None None
Anemone, Chltonanthus abyssorum None
None
None
Echlnoids:
Oph1uro1.ds:
Holothurlans:
Polychaetes:
Crustaceans:
Fishes:
M1 seellaneous:
None
(oral discs),
<2.51xlO~4 - <3.08xlO~4(36)
(arms), <3.52xlO~4(36)
None
None
None
Coryphaenoldes armatus (bone)
<3.57xlO"4 - <5.06xlO~4(36)
Deep-sea "nekton,"
None
2.10x10 3(37)
None
None
None
£ acrolepls (muscle)
8.43xlO-5(37)
None
4.44x10 5 - 5.55x10 4 Bq/g dry(14)
9.99xlO~4 Bq/g dry (md)(15)
Deep-sea "benthos,"
2.41xlO"4 - 2.15X10"3 Bq/g dry(14)
7.77xlO"4 - 5.18xlO~3 Bq/g dry(15)
A-28
-------
Table 1 , Part 4, Continued
4.2 Sr90 Calculated ambient concentrations 1n deep-sea organisms
4.2.1 Sr^ - Ambient concentrations In the environment. All sediment
concentration values expressed 1n Bq/g dry sediment unless
otherwise noted. All water concentration values expressed
1n Bq/g water unless otherwise noted.
Ocean _ Sediment Concentrations _ Deep-Mater Concentrations
North Atlantic:
North Pacific:
2.11x10 3 4.81x10 3 <3.70x10 7(17)
.26x10 3 <2.04xlO~3(37) 3.01xlO~7(38)
A-29
.96x10 7 - <3.70x10 7(37)
-------
Table 1, Part 4, Continued
4.2.2 Sr90 - Concentration factors and transfer factors of nuclldes 1n
organisms
Sponges:
None
Coelenterates: Anemone, Actinia equlna. CF , = l.CF. 9
WG t Q ry j
Scleract1n1an, Favltes vlrens. CFyet = 1100
(83)
(84)
Asteroids:
None
Ech1no1ds:
None
Oph1uro1ds: None
Holothurlans: None
Polychaetes: None
Crustaceans:
Fishes:
/
Decapod, various spp. CF . = 3-28v
Decapods, unidentified shrimp and crab, CF .
= 28
(94)
Various spp.,
= l-24
(25)
Coryphaenoldes spp,, muscle, CF . 30
,(94)
(39)
Anchovy,
= 3.4 3.7(
Sardinia pllcardus.
= 9.1 - 10.4
(105)
Japanese horse mackeral, CF . = 22
(106)
Sand flounder, CFwgt = 24(106)
Pleuronectes platessa. CF . = 1.0
(112)
A-30
-------
Table 1, Part 4, Continued
4.2.3 Sr90 - Calculated ranges of ambient concentrations 1n deep-sea
organisms. All values expressed 1n Bq/g wet weight of
whole organism unless otherwise noted. 1.0. -
Insufficient data to calculate values.
Sponges:
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Coelenterates: (not Including data for scleractlnlans)
North Atlantic - total range: 3.70xlO~7
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: <2.96xlO~7 <3.70xlO~7
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Asteroids:
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Ech1no1ds:
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Oph1uro1ds:
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
A-31
-------
Table 1, Part 4, Continued
North Pacific - total range:
range 1n deep-sea taxa:
Holothurlans:
North Atlantic - total range:
range 1n deep-sea taxa:
North Pacific - total range:
range 1n deep-sea taxa:
Polychaetes:
North Atlantic total range:
range 1n deposit feeders:
range 1n deep-sea taxa:
North Pacific - total range:
range 1n deposit feeders:
range 1n deep-sea taxa:
Crustaceans:
North Atlantic - total range:
range 1n amphlpods:
range 1n deep-sea taxa:
North Pacific - total range:
range 1n amphlpods:
range In deep-sea taxa:
Fishes:
North Atlantic - total range:
range 1n gadlforms:
range 1n deep-sea taxa:
North Pacific - total range:
range 1n gadlforms:
range 1n deep-sea taxa:
1.0.
I.D.
I.D.
I.D.
I.D.
I.D.
I.D.
I.D.
I.D.
I.D.
I.D.
I.D.
1.11x10 6 - 1 .04x10 5
I.D.
I.D.
<8.88xlO~7 - <1.04xlO~5
I.D.
I.D.
3.7x10 7 - 8.88x10 6
macrourld muscle = 1.11x10
macrourld muscle = 1.11x10
<2.96xlO~7 - <8.88xlO"6
macrourld muscle = <8.88x10
macrourld muscle = <8.88x10
-5
-5
-6
-6
A-32
-------
Table 1.
5.1
MEASURED AND CALCULATED AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF
RAOIONUCLIDES IN DEEP-SEA ORGANISMS. Part 5: CESIUM-137.
' - Measured ambient concentrations 1n deep-sea organisms. All
values express 1n Bq/g wet weight of whole organism unless
otherwise noted. *Ind1cate the minimum detectable activities
(MDA's) for samples 1n which Cs^7 was sought but not detected.
Taxon
North Atlantic
North Pacific
Sponges: (whole)
Coelenterates:
Asteroids:
Ech1no1ds: (whole)
Holothurlans:
Polychaetes:
Crustaceans:
None
Anemone, Chltonanthus abyssorum
4.83.10"5 9.66xlO~5(81)
None
7.40x10 4-7.73x10 3(40)
Oph1uro1ds: (whole) <6.55x10
-2
. 57x10
Molpadla sp.
5.70xlO"4
6.46X10-4'41'
Unidentified sp.
<3.70xlO-4*(4°>
-3*(40)
<4.44x10
Mixed (amphlpods, cumaceans,
copepods),
1.59xlO-2(40)
<2.14xlO~3* - <7.62xlO"2*(40)
Not detectable;(37)
MDA not given
Unidentified anemone
Not detectable^37*;
MDA not given
Unidentified "coral,"
Not detectable(37);
MOA not given
None
None
..(37)
Not detectable;
MDA not given
(eviscerated Individual)
Not detectable;(37)
MOA not given
Aphrodite sp.
(eviscerated Individual)
6.35xlO-4(37)
Amphlpod, Eurythenes
gryllus.
8.4xlO~6 - 3.51xlO~5(42)
A-33
-------
Table 1, Part 5, Continued
Taxon North Atlantic
North Pacific
Fishes:
Amphlpods, (Including £. gryllus)
<3.44xlO"3* - <6.81xlO"V
Macrourlds (muscle),
1.78xlO"4(1)
,-4(2)
1.75x10
9.52x10
-5(41)
Coryphaenoides armatus
(various parts to whole
Individuals),
2.22X10"4 - 1.48xlO~3(40)
<2.15xlO~3* - <7.62xlO~2*(40)
C_. armatus (muscle),
<1 .llxlO"3* - <1 .85xlO"3*(43)
C.- caraplnus .
C^. acrolepls (muscle)
2.83xlO"4(37)
Not detected 1n 3 1nd.;
MOAs not given
Zoardd (muscle)
Not detectable;(37)
MDA not given
Antlmora rostrada
(various parts to whole Individuals),
<1.48xlO"4* - <2.96xlO"4(40)
Aphanopus carbo (muscle),
2.52X10"4 - 3.96xlO"4(102)
Zoardds
<2.22x10
-4(40)
Unidentified sp. (muscle and
eviscerated whole Individuals),
1.89xlO"4 + 8.5xlO~5(98)
A-34
-------
Table 1, Part 5, Continued
Taxon
North Atlantic
North Pacific
Miscellaneous:
Mixed eplfauna
(amphlpods, cumaceans, ophlurolds),
<3.92x10~2* - <6.88xlO~2(40)
None
Deep-sea "nekton,"
2.96X10"4 - 4.44X10"3 Bq/g dry(14)
3.33x10
-4
1.41x10 3 Bq/g dry(15)
Deep-sea "benthos,"
2.63X10"4 - 4.81xlO~3 Bq/g dry (14)
1.37xlO~3 - 5.92xlO"3 Bq/g dry (15)
A-35
-------
Table 1, Part 5, Continued
5.2 Cs137 - Calculated ambient concentrations 1n deep-sea organisms
5.2.1 Cs137 - Ambient concentrations 1n the environment. All sediment
concentration values expressed 1n Bq/g dry sediment unless otherwise
noted. All water concentration values expressed 1n Bq/g water
unless otherwise noted. *Ind1cate the minimum detectable activities
(MDA's) for samples 1n which Cs137 was sought but not detected.
Ocean
Sediment Concentrations
Deep-Water Concentrations
North Atlantic:
North Pacific:
4
3.66x10
7.03xlO~4(44) (md)
2.17x10 4 - 7.18x10 3(16)
3.70x10 4 - 1
.26X10-3(18)
<3.70xlO
~4*
.41xlO
~3*(18)
,-4
7.40x10"" - 1.85x10
<7.40xlO~4* - <2.96x10
-3(19)
-3*(19)
1.05x01 3 - 3.82x10 3(45)
7.80xlO"3 (Avg. surface value)(46)
1.82x10 3- 3.64xlO"3(4)
3.34xlO"4- 1.84xlO"3(42)
3.07xlO"3- 6.51xlO"3(37)
Not detected In 8 cores;
MOA1s not given
<3.70xlO~7(17)
8.51x10 7 - 2.59x10 6(18)
<3.7xlO
-9
.11x10
-7*(18)
MOA's
-4*
.11x10 - <3.7xlO
Interfadal water,
<4.07xlO~ - <6.66xlO
"4(18)
<3.34xlO-7(47)
<3.34xlO-7(48)
<3.34xlO-7<49>
0±8.35xlO~8(42)
Not detected 1n 2 samples
MDA's not given
(37)
A-36
-------
Table 1 , Part 5, Continued
5.2.2
Concentration factors and transfer factors of nuclldes 1n
organisms
Sponges:
Coelenterates:
Asteroids:
Ech1no1ds:
Oph1uro1ds:
Holothurlans:
Polychaetes:
Crustaceans:
None
Anemones, Actinia equlna. CF
«f10'CFdr,-M
(83)
Tealla fellna. CFwet - 4.6 - 8.0(51)
Metr1d1um senile var. dlanthus. CF . - 10.1-11.6
(51)
Ca111act1s parasltlca.
Echlnaster seposltus. CF
.
- 3
4.2 -
(7)
Astropecten arandacus. CF. - 8
Paracentrotus 11v1dus. CF. = 40
Arbada Hxula. CF.r = 50^
Sphaerechlnus granularls. CF.
(52)
(7)
= 130
(7)
Br1ssops1s lylfera. CF . = 261-339
( 51 ^
Psammechlnus m11ar1s. CF , = 4V '
EcMnocardlum cordatum. TF .=1.2
(52)
(21)
Ophloderma longlcauda. CF. = 7
(7)
Holothurla tubulosa. CF . = 20
(7)
Arenlcola marina. CF
wet
2-3, TFwet = 4-5
(21)
Nereis .1apon1ca. CFwet = 5-6, TFwet =.158-.200
Nereis dlverslcolor. CF . = 6.3(51)
(20)
Nephtys spp., CFyet = 3.
Decapods, various spp., CF . - 7.6-102; 1 extreme value of 100,000
Decapods, various spp., CF. = 35-102
Isopod, Sphaeroma hookerl, CFwgt = 5.9
Decapod, Leander serratus. CF . = 20-40
We U /iT rt\
Decapod, Cardnus maenas. CF . = 4
Decapod, Crangon vulgarls. CF . = 20
25
,(88)
i
,(110)
A-37
-------
Table 1 , Part 5, Continued
Decapod, unidentified shrimp, CF , = 100(104)
(94)
Decapods, unidentified shrimp and crab, CF , = 11-20V '
(89)
Decapod, Palaemon serratus. CF = 17.1 - 29. 5V
Fishes: Various spp., CF . = 5-350(25)
(521
Various spp., CF. = 37-208v '
y /Q\
Mesopelaglc fish muscle, CF^. = 6CP '
(39)
Coryphaenoldes spp., muscle, CF . = 150V '
Blennlus. sp., CFu/o. = 15.35(88*
f90)
Glrella punctata. Cf. 1.25 - 4.(T ;
Anchovy, CF^. = 17- 18
nm \
Selaroldes leptoleptls. CF. = 67V '
^ ntrn
Selap crunenophthalmus. CF.rv, = 1439V'U|;
- - - y (ion
Eplnephelus pachycentron. CF. = 1562V '
Dasyatls zegel . CFdr
Parallchthys dentatus.
A-38
-------
Table 1, Part 5, Continued
5.2.3 Cs^37 _
Calculated ranges of ambient concentrations 1n deep-sea
organisms. All values expressed 1n Bq/g wet weight of
whole organism unless otherwise noted. 1.0. -
Insufficient data to calculate values. *Ind1cate
minimum values calculated using lowest minimum
detectable activity (MDA) reported for sediment or water
samples 1n which Cs137 was sought but not detected.
Sponges:
North Atlantic - total range:
range 1n deep-sea taxa:
North Pacific - total range:
range 1n deep-sea taxa:
Coelenterates:
North Atlantic - total range:
range 1n deep-sea taxa:
North Pacific - total range:
range 1n deep-sea taxa:
Asteroids:
North Atlantic - total range:
range 1n deep-sea taxa:
North Pacific - total range:
range 1n deep-sea taxa:
Ech1no1ds:
North Atlantic - total range:
range 1n deep-sea taxa:
North Pacific - total range:
range 1n deep-sea taxa:
I.D.
I.D.
I.D.
I.D.
3.42x10
I.D.
2.10xlO
I.D.
_ _
- 9.44x10 ; (<1. 71x10 °)*
"7
- 5.8x!0
~7(56)
-4 -1 -4 ( S"^
9.60x10 - 2.56x10 ; (<4. 80x10 H)*
2.56x10
_3
"8
5.91x10 - 1.05x10
1.58X10"7 - 1.05x10
-6(56)
-6(58)
4.44x10
-4
-4
-? 4
8.03x10 ; (4.44x10
-
4.44x10 - 8.03x10
2.00xlO"7 - 2.21xlO~3(56)
3.81xlO"6 - 2.21xlO~3(59)
A-39
-------
Table 1, Part 5, Continued
Oph1uro1ds:
_Q a (53)
North Atlantic - total range: 3.14x10 ;(\
North Atlantic - total range: 2.47x10 ; (<1.23x10 °)*^°'
range In deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: 1.52xlO"7 - 1.01x!0~6(56)
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Polychaetes:
North Atlantic - total range: 5.85x10 5 - 6.3x10 3; (<5.85x10 5)*(53)
-3 -3
range 1n deposit feeders: 1.48x10 - 6.3x10 ;
range 1n deep-sea taxa: 5.85xlO"5 - 5.13xlO~3(57)
North Pacific - total range: 1.00x10 7 - 9.20x10 3(56)
range 1n deposit feeders: 1.34xlO"3 - 9.20xlO~3(55)
range 1n deep-sea taxa: 1.75xlO~7 - 3.68xlO"4^57^
Crustaceans:
North Atlantic - total range: 3.26xlO"3 - 8.3xlO"2; (<1 .63xlO~3)*(53)
range 1n amphlpods: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: 2.00xlO"7- 3.41xlO~5(56)
range 1n amphlpods: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
A-40
-------
Table 1. Part 5: Continued
Fishes:
North Atlantic - total range: 1.06xlO"6 2.85X10"1; (<4.63xlO~9)*^54^
range in gadiforms: macrourid muscle, 1.28x10" - 1.22x10" ' '
range in deep-sea taxa: macrourid muscle, 1.28x10" - 1.22x10"
North Pacific - total range: 6.26xlO"8 - 1 .1 7x10~V 54^
range in gadiforms: macrourid muscle, 7.52x10 5.01x10" ^ '
range in deep-sea taxa: macrourid muscle, 7.52x10" - 5.01x10" ^ '
A-41
-------
Table 1. MEASURED AND CALCULATED AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN
DEEP-SEA ORGANISMS. Part 6: PLUTONIUM-239,240.
5j 239,240pu _ Measured ambient concentrations 1n deep-sea organisms. All
values expressed 1n Bq/g wet weight of whole organism unless
otherwise noted.
Tax on
Fishes:
North Atlantic
North Pacific
Sponges :
Coelenterates :
Asteroids:
Echlnolds :
Oph1uro1ds :
Holothurlans :
Polychaetes :
Crustaceans:
None
None
None
None
3.30xlO-5(36)
Molpadla sp.
5.85X10-5(41)
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Eurythenes gr
8.18X10'6 -8.85xlO~6(42)
Unidentified sp. (muscle),
<3.7xlO-6(98)
Coryphaenoldes armatus (muscle),
<2.03xlO"3 - <4.34xlO"3(36)
Macrourlds (muscle).
7.0xlO"7(1)
None
1 .4x10
-6(2)
2.67x10
-7(41)
A-42
-------
Table 1, Part 6, Continued
5.2 239,240pu _ calculated ambient concentrations 1n deep-sea organisms
6.2.1 239,240pu Ambient concentrations 1n the environment. All sediment
concentration values expressed 1n Bq/g dry sediment unless
otherwise noted. All water concentration values expressed
in Bq/g water unless otherwise noted.
Ocean
Sediment Concentrations
Deep-Water Concentrations
North Atlantic
.84xlO~5 - 4.86xlO~4(16)
1 .57x10"
4.68x10
-4(45)
-4 -4(46)
1.50x10 5.20x10 ^ '
3.70xlO'9 1.48xlO~8(60)
5.00xlO-7(46)
North Pacific:
1.54xlO~3 - 1.84xlO~3(61)
r5
Bq/g wet
.34x10 " - 1 .27x10
(42)
"4
7.40X10"9 - l.llxlO"8(62)
2.17xlO-9(38)
8.35X10"9 - <3.34xlO"8(47)
<8.35xlO-9(48)
<1.67xlO~8 - <3.34xlO"8(49)
8.35x10 9 - 2.51x10 8;
5800m
(42)
5.85x10
6.68x10
1.62x10
2.84x10
1.32x10
2.07x10
1 .19x10
1.84x10
1.40x10
1 .17x10
2.51x10
1.04x10
-9.
t
-9.
f
-8
-Q
r
-8
-8.
t
-8.
I
-8.
I
-8
3000m
3000m
5600m
5800m
3009m
5085m
5305m
5504m
5586m
5700m
(42)
(42)
(42)
(42)
(42)
(42)
(42)
(42)
(42)
(42)
5754m
(42)
-1 .22x10
-8
.94xlO"8-2.00xlO"8;
3000m
5600m
(42)
(42)
A-43
-------
Table 1, Part 6, Continued
6.2.2 239,240pu _ Concentration factors and transfer factors of
nuclldes 1n organisms
Sponges:
Coelenterates:
Asteroids:
Ech1no1ds:
Oph1uro1ds:
Holothurlans:
Polychaetes:
Various spp. (Ha11chondr1s panlcea. Hymenlacldon
sangulnea and Renlera sp.) CFwet 137C)(b4)
Clathrla dellcata. CFwet = 2100(85)
Hymenlacldon sangulnea. CFwet = 1495(97)
Ha11chondr1a panlcea. CFwet = 1365(97)
Renelra sp., CFwet = 1260(97)
Anemones, various spp. (Achnia equlna and Tealla fellna)
CFwet = 165 (64). (§7)
Scleract1n1an, Favltes vlrens. CFwet = 2700(84)
Asterlna glbbosa. CFwet = 452(64)
Asterlas rubens. CFwet = 134C)(bb)
Marthasterlas gladalls. CFwet = 2200(66)
Cosdnasterlas tenulsplna. CFwet - 2700(66)
Asterlas forbesl. CFwet 1020(85)
Asterlas sp., CFwet = 1830 - 2750(10°)
None
Unidentified sp., CFwet = 760(85) None
None
Arenlcola marina. CFwet = 7(63)-103(64). (97);
TFdry= 0.45(b4)t TFwet = .002(^3)
Hermlone hystrlx. CFwet = 130(107), 275-370(108);
TFwet= .05+lUUBJ
Nereis d1verslcolor. CFwet - 190(86)-315(64) (97);
A-44
-------
Table 1, Part 6, Continued
TFdry .0021-.0060(65), 0.1?(64); TFwet = .00l(86)
Nereis sp., CFwet = 4100(85)
Crustaceans: Decapods, various spp., CFwej- = 38-269(25)
Amphlpod, Corophlum volutator. CFwet = 780(63)
Decapods, unidentified shrimp and crab, CFwet 25fj(94)
Decapod, Cancer pagurus. CFwet = 269(9&)
Decapod, Carclnus magnas. CFwet = 9Q.(97)
Decapod, Cancer pagurus. CFwet = 38(97)
Decapod, Homarus vulgarls. CFwe^ = 6fl(97)
Barnacle, Balanus sp., CFwet = 1140 -2520C100)
Barnacle, Balanus balanoldes. CFwet - 503(97)
Decapod, Lysmata setlcaudata. CFwet = 5 - ig(109)
Fishes: Various spp., CFwet = l-239(25)
Anchovy, CFwet = 51(94)
Mullet, eviscerated whole, CFwet 1&(95)
Surgeon fish, eviscerated whole, CFwe^- = 130(9^)
Convict fish, eviscerated whole, CFwet = 26 - 200(95)
Pleuronectes platessa. CFwet = 239(96)
Plaice, CFwet = 73(97)
Blenny, CFwet = 20(97)
Hackeral, CFwet =
A-45
-------
Table 1, Part 6, Continued
6.2.3 239,240pu _ Calculated ranges of ambient concentrations 1n
deep-sea organisms. All values expressed 1n Bq/g wet
weight of whole organism unless otherwise noted.
I.D. - Insufficient data to calculate values.
Sponges :
North Atlantic - total range: 4.66xlO~6 - 1 .05xl(T3(68)
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: 2.73xlO"6 <7 .01 xl(T5(68)
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Coelenterates : (not Including data for scleractlnlans)
North Atlantic total range: 6.11xl(T7 - 8.25xlO"5(68)
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific total range: 3.58xlO"7 - <5.51 xlO~6(68)
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Asteroids :
North Atlantic - total range: 1.67xlO~6 - 1 .38xlO~3(68)
range 1n deep-sea taxa: 4.96xlO"6 - 1 .38xlO"3^71 ^
North Pacific - total range: 9.81xlO"7 - <9.19xlO~5(68)
range 1n deep-sea taxa: 2.91xlO"6 - <9.19xlO~5^71
Ech1no1ds :
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
A-46
-------
Table 1, Part 6, Continued
Oph1uro1ds:
North Atlantic - total range:
range 1n deep-sea taxa:
North Pacific - total range:
range 1n deep-sea taxa:
Holothurlans:
North Atlantic - total range:
range 1n deep-sea taxa:
North Pacific - total range:
range 1n deep-sea taxa:
Polychaetes:
North Atlantic - total range:
range 1n deposit feeders:
range 1n deep-sea taxa:
North Pacific - total range:
range 1n deposit feeders:
range 1n deep-sea taxa:
Crustaceans:
North Atlantic - total range:
range 1n amphlpods:
range 1n deep-sea taxa:
North Pacific - total range:
range 1n amphlpods:
range 1n deep-sea taxa:
2.81X10"6 - 3.80X10"4 (68)
I.D.
1.65X10"6 - <2.54xl(T5 (68)
I.D.
1.0.
I.D.
I.D.
I.D.
5.06X10"9 - 2.05X10"3 (67)
2.59X10"8 - 5.15xlO"5 (69)
5.06X10"9 - 2.05xlO"3 (70)
.34xlO
~8
"8
. 37x10 4
"4 (69)
1.52X10" - 1.09X10
1.34X1Q-8 - <1.37xlO-4 (70)
1.85X10'8 - 1.26X1Q-3 (68)
2.89X10"6 - 3.90X10"4 (68)
I.D.
1.09X10"8 - <8.42xlO~5 (99)
1.34X10"6 - <1.27xlO"5 (99)
I.D.
A-47
-------
Table 1, Part 6, Continued
Fishes:
North Atlantic - total range: 3.70xlO"9 - 1.20xlO~4 (68)
range 1n gadlforms: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: 1.0.
North Pacific - total range: 2.17xlO~9 - <7.98xl(T6 (68)
range 1n gadlforms: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: 1,0.
A-48
-------
Table 1. MEASURED AND CALCULATED AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF
RADIONUCLIDES IN DEEP-SEA ORGANISMS. Part 7: AMERICIUM-241.
7.1 Am241 - Measured ambient concentrations 1n deep-sea organisms.
All values expressed 1n Bq/g wet weight of whole organism
unless otherwise noted.
Taxon
North Atlantic
Sponges:
Coelenterates:
Asteroids:
Echlnoids:
Ophiuroids:
Holothurlans: (whole)
Polychaetes: (whole)
Crustaceans: (whole)
Fishes (muscle):
None
None
None
None
None
Molpadia sp.,
1.77xlO-5 3.04xlO-5(41)
None
None
Macrourlds (muscle)
,-7 (1)
3.00x10
4.70x10
2.17x10
-7 (2)
-7 (41)
North Pacific
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Eurythenes qryllus,
9.02xlO~7 - l.SOxlO"6 (42)
None
A-49
-------
Table 1, Part 7. Continued
7.2 Am241 - Calculated ambient concentrations 1n deep-sea organisms
7.2.1 Am241 - Ambient concentrations 1n the environment. All sediment
concentration values expressed 1n Bq/g sediment unless
otherwise noted. All water concentration values expressed 1n
Bq/g water unless otherwise noted.
Ocean
Sediment Concentrations
Deep-Water Concentrations
North Atlantic: S.OlxlQ-6 - 5.34xlO-4(16)
North Pacific: 5.51xlQ-4 - 6.18-4(72)
S.OlxlO-6 - S.OlxlO-5,
Bq/g wet(42)
None
3.34xlO-g - 5.01xlO-9; 5800m(42)
3.01X10-9; 5305m(42)
3.84xlO-9; 5504m(42)
3.84X10-9; 5700m(42)
A-50
-------
Table 1, Part 7, Continued
7.2.2 Am241 - Concentration factors and transfer factors of nuclldes In
organlsms
Sponges:
Coelenterates
Asteroids:
Ech1no1ds:
Oph1uro1ds:
Holothurlans:
Polychaetes:
Crustaceans:
None
None
None
None
Ophlura textura, CFwet 60(73)
Stlchopus regains. CFwet 20(73)
Arenlcola marina,
= 16
(63).
CFwet InterstniaJLuater 1n ' 68
TF - nno nmv°JJ
'wet '
(63).
Nereis dlverslcolor. TF. = .0010-.0043
(65)
Hermlone hystrlx. CFwgt = 1000
<73>
PF - 1
wet Atlantic sediment 1n =
TF
lf
TF
ir
wet Pacific sediment In
wet Atlantic sediment 1n
wet Pacific sediment In
(74).
(74).'
(75)
Euphausld, Meganyctlphanes norveglca. CFwet - 25-300
isopod, Clrolana borealls. CFwet Atlantu Sed1ment m =
CF
TF
(74)
rF ?qn
Lrwet Pacific sediment in "
Atlantic sediment
Pacific sediment
Amphlpod, Corophlum volutator,
CF
wet 1n Interstitial water
TF . = .10-.12C63)
wet
(74).
I
=1200<63>;
= 2700
Fishes:
Amphlpod, Gammarus duebenl, CF . = 25 -113
None
(87)
A-51
-------
Table 1, Part 7, Continued
7.2.3 Am241 - Calculated ranges of ambient concentrations 1n deep-sea
organisms. All values expressed 1n Bq/g wet weight of
whole organism unless otherwise noted. 1.0. -
Insufficient data to calculate values.
Sponges:
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: 1.0.
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Coelenterates:
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: 1.0.
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Asteroids:
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Echlnolds:
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Oph1uro1ds:
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
A-52
-------
Table 1, Part 7, Continued
>adf1c - tote
range 1n deep-sea taxa: l.SlxlO"7 3.01xlO'"7 ^80^
North Pacific - total range: 1.81x10 7 - 3.01xlO~7
Holothurlans:
North Atlantic - total range: 1.0.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: 6.02xlO~8 - l.OOxlO'7
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Polychaetes:
North Atlantic - total range: 6.56xlO~10 - 3.01xlO"7(77)
range 1n deposit feeders: I.D.
-10 -7(78}
range 1n deep-sea taxa: 6.56x10 3.01x10 v '
North Pacific - total range: l.OOxlO"8 2.35xlO~5
range 1n deposit feeders: l.OOxlO'8 - 3.41x!0~7^76^
range 1n deep-sea taxa: 7.22xlO~8 - 5.86xlO~4(79)
Crustaceans:
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n amphlpods: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: 7.53xlO~8 - 1.35xlO~5
Q _ C
range 1n amphlpods: 7.53x10" - 1.35xlO~
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
Fishes:
North Atlantic - total range: I.D.
range 1n gadlforms: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
North Pacific - total range: I.D.
range 1n gadlforms: I.D.
range 1n deep-sea taxa: I.D.
A-53
-------
Table 1. Footnotes
1. Park et al., 1983; samples collected at nondumplng site 1n NE
Atlantic, 52°30.26'N, 17°43.62'W; 4046 m; data reported 1n Bq/kg
wet; macrourld sampled 1s probably Coryphaenoldes armatus.
2. Park et al., 1983; samples collected at NEA dumps He, 45°59.55'N,
17°23.20'W; 4729 m; authors state that activity 1s probably due to
fallout; data reported 1n Bq/kg wet.
3. Bowen and Livingston, 1981; previous U.S.A. Atlantic dumpslte,
38°30.2'N, 72°09.4'W; 2827 m; samples within top 7.5 cm of
sediment; authors considered Fe55 activity to reflect fallout
levels; data reported as >240 dpm/kg dry.
4. Bowen and Livingston, 1981; various Pacific sites Including
previous U.S.A. dumpsite; 33°39' 38°17'N, 118°10' - 123°08'W;
800-1920 m; samples within top 5.0 cm of sediment- areas subject,
1n authors' opinion, only to fallout levels of Fe" and Cs^';
data reported 1n dpm/kg dry sediment.
5. Bowen, 1980; central North Pacific MPG-1 site (coordinates not
given); water sample taken at 5800 m (noted as near bottom sample
but bottom depth not given); concentration 1s derived from the
ratio of soluble Fe55/Pu (=21 ± 19) and concentration of 239Pu
1n the water sample 1 = 0.17 _t 0.08 dpm/100 kg) reported by the
author.
6. Jennings and Fowler, 1980.
7. Papadopoulou et al., 1976; CFs calculated on the basis of stable
Isotope concentrations.
8. Van Weers, 1980; CF based on stable Isotope concentrations.
9. Nakahara et al., 1980; CF based on stable Isotope concentrations;
average CF based on 5 mesopelaglc species caught at 100-1000 m off
Japan - Sebastes matsubaral. Scombrops boops. Hyperoqlyphe
japonlca. Paracalslo caerulus. and Beryx splendens.
10. Based on CFs of Nereis dlverslcolor; according to Hartman and
Fauchald (1971) at least 2 species of Nereis occur at abyssal
depths and are not considered rare.
11. Based on CF of Marthasterlas glaclalls; according to Madsen
(1966a), the family Aster11dae has representatives at >3000 m.
A-54
-------
12. U.S. Navy, 1984; samples collected from site of Thresher debris,
41°45'N, 65°00'W, 2590 m; Co60 not detectable 1n organisms
value given 1s smallest amount of radioactivity that could be
detected 1f any radioactivity were present; data reported in pCi/g
wet organism.
13. U.S. Navy, 1984; samples collected from site of Scorpion debris;
400 miles SW of Azores 1n basin at eastern edge of Mid Atlantic
Ridge (coordinates not given); 3048 m; Co60 not detectable 1n
organisms - value given 1s smallest amount of radioactivity that
could be detected 1f any radioactivity were present; data reported
1n pC1/g wet organism.
14. Feldt et al., 1981; present NEA dumpsite, 45°50' - 46°10'N, 16°00'
- 17°30'W; 4300 m; authors found no evidence of contamination from
waste drums at site and felt that the main source of nuclldes was
fallout; authors did not specify which of the organisms they
sampled were considered as nekton and which as benthos; organisms
collected were: Cephalopoda Abrallopsis sp., Lollgo sp.;
Thaliacea - Doliolum nat1ona11s, Salpa maxima; Crustacea - Portunus
sp., Ostelchthyes Coryphaenoides colon. C. serratus. C. rupestus,
Synaphobranchus plnnatus, Notacanthus chemnitzl. Bathypterois
grallator; S1l1cea - Euplectellum aspergi1lum; Anthozoa -
Chltonanthus abyssorum; Asteroldea - not specified; Holothuroldea -
not specified; data reported 1n pC1/kg dry organism.
15. Feldt et al., 1981; nondumping site 1n NE Atlantic, 43°30'N,
19°10'W; 5000 m; authors did not specify which of the organisms
they sampled were considered as nekton and which as benthos; see
footnote (14) for 11st of organisms collected.
16. Bowen and Livingston, 1981; previous U.S.A. Atlantic dumpsite,
38°22.8' - 38°30.9'N, 72°7.8' - 72°13.7'W; 2777-2940 m; samples
within top 6.0 cm of sediment; areas subject, 1n authors' opinion,
only to fallout levels of radlonucHdes; data reported 1n dpm/kg
dry sediment.
17. Feldt et al., 1981; present NEA dumpsite, 45°50' - 46°10'N, 16°00'
- 17°30'W; 4300 m; authors found no evidence of contamination from
waste drums at site and felt that the main source of nuclldes was
fallout; sediment samples consisted of upper 3.0 cm of sediment;
water samples taken at 4000 m; data reported 1n pC1/kg dry sediment
for sediment samples, pC1/L for water samples.
A-55
-------
18. U.S. Navy, 1984; samples collected from site of Thresher debris,
41°45'N, 65°00'W, 2590 m; radlonucllde not detected In all samples,
range of minimum detectable activities (MDA's) given for samples 1n
which nucllde was sought but not detected; sediment samples within
top 5.0 cm of sediment; data reported 1n pCI/g wet sediment for
sediment samples, pC1/L for bottom water samples, and pC1/ml for
Interfadal water samples (at sediment-water Interface); authors
report that Cs137 levels are typical of fallout levels at site.
19. U.S. Navy, 1984; samples collected from site of Scorpion debris,
400 miles SW of Azores In basin at eastern edge of M1d Atlantic
Ridge (coordinates not given); 3040 m; radlonucllde not detected 1n
all samples, range of minimum detectable activities (MDA's) given
for samples 1n which nucllde was sought but not detected; sediment
samples within top 5.0 cm of sediment; data reported 1n pC1/g dry
sediment for sediments and pC1/L for bottom water samples.
20. Ueda et al., 1977.
21. Am1ard-Tr1quet, 1975.
22. Bonotto et al., 1978.
23 Ichlkawa and Ohno, 1974; CF based on stable Isotope concentrations.
24. Cole and Carson, 1981; range for whole organisms Included 1n table
compiled form the literature; CFs based on stable Isotope
concentrations.
25. Jackson et al., 1983; range for whole organisms Included 1n table
compiled from the literature.
26. Van As et al., 1973; CF based on stable Isotope concentrations.
27. Range calculated using concentrations of nucllde 1n wet sediments
only, as only TFwe^. values are available.
28. Based on Arenlcola marina and MDA's of nucllde 1n Interfadal
water; according to Balnes (1974), Arenlcola 1s a true deposit
feeder while Nereis spp. are omnivorous.
29 Based on Nereis japonlca and concentration of nucllde 1n wet
sediments; according to Hartman and Fauchald (1971) there are
species of Nereis at abyssal depths that are not rare.
30. Based on MDA's of nucllde 1n Interfadal water.
31. Based on MDA's of nucllde 1n bottom water.
A-56
-------
32. Based on Asterlas rubens and Marthasterlas glacial 1s: according to
Madsen (1966b), the family Asterlidae has representatives at
>3000 m; calculated using MDA's of nuclide 1n Interfaclal water.
33. U.S. Navy, 1984; samples collected from site of Thresher debris,
41°45'N, 65°00'W; 2590 m; N163 not detectable 1n organisms.
34. U.S. Navy, 1984; samples collected from site of Scorpion debris,
400 miles SW of Azores 1n basin at eastern edge of M1d Atlantic
Ridge (coordinates not given); 3048 m; N1&3 not detectable 1n
samples - value given 1s smallest amount of radioactivity that
could be detected 1f any radioactivity were present; data reported
1n pC1/g wet organism.
35. Beasley and Held (1969); data reported 1n dpm/g dry organism.
36. Schell and Nev1ss1, 1983; U.S. Hudson canyon dumpslte, 37°40' -
38°15'N, 70°20' - 70°50'W; 3600-4100 m; values reported for only
those samples for which the authors give no Indication of
contamination from the waste cannlsters; data reported 1n mBq/g dry
organism; authors provide wet wt dry wt conversion factors.
37. Schell and Sugal, 1980; U.S. Farallon Islands dumpslte, 37°30' -
37°40'N, 123°05' - 123°20'W; 878-1829 m; values reported for only
those samples for which the authors give no Indication of
contamination from the waste cannlsters; biological samples taken
with other trawls, water samples taken 3-12 m off the bottom,
sediment samples within top 6.0 cm of sediment; biological and
sediment sample data reported 1n pC1/g dry; water sample data
reported 1n pC1/m3.
38. Bowen et al., 1980; Pacific GEOSECS station, 16°45'N, 161°23.7'W
sample from 5508-5510 m, 5564 m bottom depth; data reported In
dpm/100 kg.
39. Feldt et al., 1981; based on samples of Coryphaenoldes colon. C..
serratus. and/or £. rupestls collected from an NEA Initial dumpslte
(42° - 43°N, 14° - 15° W, bottom depth - 5200 m), an NEA present
dumpslte (45°50' - 46°10'N, 16°00 - 17°30'W, bottom depth -
4300 m), and/or a nondumplng site (43°30'N, 19°10'W, bottom depth -
5000 m).
40. U.S. Navy, 1984; samples collected from site of Thresher debris,
41°45'N, 65°00'W; 2590 m; radlonucUde not detected 1n all samples,
range of minimum detectable activities (MDA's) given for samples 1n
which nucllde was sought but not detected; data reported as pC1/g
wet organism; authors attribute Cs137 levels to fallout.
A-57
-------
41. Bowen, 1980; samples from North Atlantic (coordinates not given);
approximately 2600 m; data reported 1n dpm/kg wet organism;
macrourld sampled 1s probably Coryphaenoldes armatus.
42. Bowen, 1980; Central North Pacific MPG-1 site (coordinates not
given); 5800 m; biological samples reported as dpm/kg wet organism,
water samples reported as dpm/kg, dpm/100 kg; sediment samples
comprised of top 1 cm of sediment and reported as dpm/kg wet.
43. U.S. Navy, 1984; samples collected from site of Scorpion debris,
400 miles SW of Azores 1n basin at eastern edge of M1d Atlantic
Ridge (coordinates not given); 3048 m; radlonucUde not detected 1n
all samples; range of minimum detectable activities (MDA's) given
for samples 1n which nucllde was sought but not detected; data
reported as pC1/g wet organism; authors attribute Cs^7 levels to
fallout.
44. Feldt et al., 1981; nondumping site 1n NE Atlantic, 43°30'N,
19°10'W; 5000 m; sediment samples consisted of upper 3.0 cm of
sediment; data reported in pC1/kg .dry sediment.
45. Livingston and Bowen, 1979; NW Atlantic slope, 40°06.7'N, 68°01'W;
2080 m; samples within top 5 cm of sediment; data reported 1n
dpm/kg dry sediment.
46. Schell and Nevlssi, 1983; U.S. Hudson Canyon dumpslte, 37MO' -
38°15'N, 70°20' - 70°50'W; 3600-4100 m; values reported for only
those samples for which authors give no indication of contamination
from waste cannisters; sediment samples reported in Bq/kg dry and
Bq/g dry; water samples reported in Bq/m^; sediment samples
within top 2.0 cm of sediment, water samples taken 3-10 m off the
bottom.
47. Bowen et al., 1980; W. Pacific N-S section, 52°N - 18°S, 170°W -
170°E, 1973-74 GEOSECS program; 4000-7000 m; data reported in
dpm/100 kg.
48. Bowen et al., 1980; E. Pacific N-S section, 34°N 13°S, 121°W -
128°E, 1973-74 GEOSECS program; 2000-5000 m; data reported in
dpm/100 kg.
49. Bowen et al., 1980; N. Pacific E-W section, 30° - 35°N, 128°W -
142°E, 1973-74 GEOSECS program; 4000-7000 m; data reported 1n
dpm/100 kg.
50. Pentreath and Jeffries, 1971.
A-58
-------
51 . Bryan, 1963.
52. G1lat et al., 1975.
53. Range calculated using concentrations of nucllde In wet sediments
and Interfadal water.
54. Range calculated using concentrations of nucllde 1n bottom water.
55. Based on Arenlcola marina; according to Balnes (1974). Arenlcola 1s
a true deposit feeder; range calculated using concentration of
nucllde 1n wet sediments only.
56. Range calculated using concentrations of nucllde 1n wet sediments
and bottom water.
57. Based on Nereis spp. and Nephtys spp., concentrations of nucllde 1n
wet sediments and Interfadal water 1n the North Atlantic, and
concentrations of nucllde 1n wet sediments and bottom water 1n the
North Pacific; according to Hartman and Fauchald (1971), both
genera are represented 1n the deep sea.
58. Based on Astropecten arandacus, concentrations of nucllde 1n
Interfadal water 1n the North Atlantic, and concentrations of
nucllde 1n bottom water 1n the North Pacific; according to Madsen
(1966b), the family Astropect1n1dae 1s one of the four most common
families of asteroids at >3000 m.
59. Based on Br1ssops1s lyrlfera and Ech1nocard1um cordatum;
concentrations of nucllde 1n wet sediments and Interfaclal water 1n
the North Atlantic and concentrations of nucllde 1n wet sediments
and bottom water 1n the North Pacific; according to Mortensen
(1966), various spatangolds are more or less exclusively deep-sea
(>3000 m) dwellers.
60. Noshkln, 1972; 25° - 27°N, 76°W - 0°E; 1000-4500 m; data reported
1n fC1/L.
61. Bowen and Livingston, 1981; various Pacific sites Including
previous U.S.A. dumpslte, 33°39' - 38°17'N, 118°10' - 119°28'W;
800-1920 m; samples within top 5.0 cm of sediment: areas subject,
1n authors' opinion, only to fallout levels of 239,240pu;
-------
64. Guary and Fralzler, 1977.
65. Beasley and Fowler, 1976.
66. Guary et al., 1982.
67. Ranges calculated using concentrations of nucllde 1n dry sediments
and water samples.
68. Ranges calculated using concentrations of nucllde 1n water samples
69. Based on Arenlcola marina and concentrations of nucllde 1n dry
sediments and water samples; according to Balnes (1974), Arenlcola
1s a true deposit feeder.
70. Based on Nerels dlverslcolor and concentrations of nucllde 1n dry
sediments and water samples; according to Hartman and Fauchald
(1971), there are species of Nereis at abyssal depths that are not
rare.
71 . Based on Asterlas rubens, Cosdnasterla tenulspora. and
Marthasterlas gladalls, and concentrations of nucllde 1n water
samples; according to Madsen (1966a), the family Aster11dae has
representatives at >3000 m.
72. Bowen and Livingston, 1981; various Pacific sites Including
previous U.S.A. dumpslte, 33°39' - 37°38'N, 119°28' - 123°08'W;
976-1920 m; samples within top 5.0 cm of sediment- areas subject,
1n authors' opinion, only to fallout levels of Arn^l ; data
reported 1n dpm/kg dry sediment.
73. Grille et al., 1981.
74. Vangenechten et al., 1983.
75. Fisher et al., 1983.
76. Based on Arenlcola marina and CFwe^ from Interstitial water and
TFwef, according to Balnes (1974), Arenlcola Is a true deposit
feeder.
77. Based on concentrations of nucllde 1n dry sediments only.
78. Based on Nereis d1verslcolor and concentrations of nucllde 1n dry
sediments; according to Hartman and Fauchald (1971), there are
species of Nereis at abyssal depths that are not rare.
A-60
-------
79. Based on Hermlone hystrx and Nereis d1verslcolor; according to
Hartman and Fauchald (1971), there are aphrodltlds and species of
Nereis at abyssal depths that are not rare.
80. Based on Ophlura textura; according to Madsen (1966b), species of
Ophlura occur at >3000 m.
81. Feldt et al., 1981; present NEA dumpsHe, 45°50' - 46°10'N, 16°00'
- 17°30'W; 4300 m; authors found no evidence of contamination from
waste drums at site and felt that the main source of nuclldes was
fallout; data reported 1n pC1/kg dry; approximate wet-dry
conversion provided for C. abyssorum. Organ not specified,
probably whole body.
82. Feldt et al., 1981; nondumplng site In NE Atlantic, 43°30'N,
19°10'W; 5000 m; data reported In pC1/kg dry; approximate wet-dry
conversion provided for C. abyssorum; organ not specified, probably
whole body.
83. Pollkarpov, 1961 .
84. Noshkln et al., 1975.
85. Noshkln et al., 1973.
86. Murray and Renfro, 1976; equilibrium conditions not reached.
87. Hoppenhelt et al., 1980.
88. Avargues et al., 1968.
89. Bryan and Ward, 1962.
90. Nakahara et al., 1977.
91. Sh1m1zu et al., 1970.
92. Hlyama and Khan, 1964.
93. Nakahara et al., 1979.
94. Kurabayashl et al., 1980.
95. Nev1ss1 and Schell, 1975.
96. Guary et al., 1976.
A-61
-------
97. Fralzler and Guary (1976) as cited by Noshkln (1985).
98. Noshkln (1983) as cited by Noshkln (1985); samples collected at
2100 m 1n the Bay of Biscay; data reported 1n pC1/kg wet.
99. Ranges calculated using concentrations of nucllde 1n wet sediments
and water samples.
100. Bowen et al. (1975) as cited by Noshkln (1985).
101. Dougherty and Ng, 1982.
102. Ortlns de Bettencourt et al., 1980; samples collected near Madeira
Island, 36°19'N - 41°31'N, 7°22'W - 10°30'W; 1800-2000 m; data
reported 1n pC1/kg wet.
103. Mitchell and Pentreath (1982) as dted by Noshkln (1985); samples
collected from the NE Atlantic near the radiological dumpslte;
Noshkln does not report sampling depth; Noshkln states, "137cs
concentrations 1n the dumpslte fish were reported to be not
significantly different from those specimens of the same species
caught at other locations 1n the northeast Atlantic."
104. Preston and Jeffries (1969) as cited by Noshkln (1985).
105. Cigna et al., 1963.
106. Ueda et al. (1975) as cited 1n Noshkln (1985).
107. Grlllo et al. (1981) as cited 1n Harrison (1985).
108. Aston and Fowler (1984) as dted 1n Harrison (1985).
109. Fowler et al. (1975) as cited 1n Harrison (1985).
110. Bonotto et al. (1981) as dted 1n Harrison (1985).
111. Baptist and Price (1962) as dted 1n Harrison (1985).
112. Templeton (1959) as dted 1n Harrison (1985).
113. Young (1982) as dted 1n Harrison (1985).
114. Hlyama (1962) as dted 1n Harrison (1985).
115. van Weers (1975) as dted 1n Harrison (1985).
A-62
-------
Table 2. SUMMARY OF MEASURED AND CALCULATED AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN DEEP-SEA
ORGANISMS AND SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS FOR THEIR DETECTION.
Introductory notes and definitions
(1) Numbers 1n parentheses refer to footnotes that are listed at the end of the table and
which provide references for and detailed Information concerning the data.
(11) Total ranges 1n Bq/g wet wt are from Table 1 and refer to ranges 1n whole organisms
unless otherwise Indicated. * Values given under "measured concentrations" are the
minimum detectable activities (MDA's) for samples 1n which the nucllde was sought but not
detected; * values given under "calculated conservations" were calculated using the
smallest (for range minimum) or greatest (for range maximum) MDA's reported for sediment
or water samples.
(111) Total range (Bq/g ash wt) = total range (Bq/g wet wt) divided by the mean ash content of
taxon; values for mean ash contents are given 1n the footnotes.
(1v) "Detectable minimum?" refers to whether or not the minimum estimated ambient
concentration of the specified nucllde 1n the specified taxon 1s detectable with the
minimum detection level given. The minimum detection levels used 1n this report represent
minimum detection levels that are, according to EPA Eastern Environmental Radiation
Facility personnel and literature report (see footnotes) routinely achievable. They are,
therefore, conservative estimates. "Yes" signifies that the minimum estimated ambient
concentration of the nucllde 1s greater than or equal to the Indicated minimum detection
level; "No" signifies that 1t 1s less than the Indicated minimum detection level. "Yes?"
signifies that the minimum estimated ambient concentration of the specified nucllde 1n
the specified taxon 1s expressed as a limit, I.e.,
-------
Table 2. SUMMARY OF MEASURED AND CALCULATED AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN DEEP-SEA
ORGANISMS AND SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS FOR THEIR DETECTION AT THE MINIMUM EXPECTED
CONCENTRATION.
Part 1: Iron-55; minimum detection level = 1.38xlQ-5 Bq/g ash 1n a 40 g ash
sample^).
Measured Concentrations Calculated Concentrations
SPONGES
X Ash Content =
8.36% Wet Wt(7)
COELENTERATES
X Ash Content =
2.22% Wet Wt(8)
ASTEROIDS
X Ash Content =
13.54% Wet Wt(9)
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
1.41xl--5-2.11xlQ-5
1 . 04xlO-4-l.56xlO-4
Yes
295 g wet wt
A-64
-------
Table 2, Part 1, Continued
Measured Concentrations Calculated Concentrations
ECHINOIDS
X Ash Content =
34.26% Wet Wt<9)
OPHIUROIDS
X Ash Content =
25.73% Wet Wt<9)
HOLOTHURIANS
X Ash Content =
4.60% Wet Wt(9)
POLYCHAETES
X Ash Content =
4.41% Wet WtO°)
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
5.03xlO-5-9.89xlO-5
1.47xlO-4-2.8 xlO-4
Yes
117 g wet wt
None
2.30xlO-5
8.94xlO-5
Yes
155 g wet wt
None
3.61xlO-6
7.85xlO-5
Yes
870 g wet wt
4.73xl-~6->7.35xlO-5
1.07xlO-4- 1.67xlO-3
Yes
907 g wet wt
A-65
-------
Table 2, Part 1, Continued
Measured Concentrations Calculated Concentration;
CRUSTACEANS
X Ash Content =
6.23% Wet WtO"1)
FISHES
X Ash Content =
3.19% Wet Wt(12)
whole
1.45% Wet Wt(13)
soft parts
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
None
None
None
(macrourid muscle)
9.50xlO-4-l.60x1-3
(macrourid muscle)
6.55x10-2-1.lOxlO-1
Yes
2759 g wet wt
None
4.59xlO-7-5.00x10-4
1.04xlO-5-l.13x10-2
No
None
1 .79xlO-3
2.87x10-2
Yes
642 g wet wt
None
(muscle) 1 .73xlO-4
1.19x10-2
Yes
2759 g wet wt
A-66
-------
Table 2. SUMMARY OF MEASURED AND CALCULATED AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN DEEP-SEA
ORGANISMS AND SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS FOR THEIR DETECTION AT THE MINIMUM EXPECTED
CONCENTRATION.
Part 2: Cobalt-60; minimum detection level = 4.63xlO~3 Bq/g ash 1n a 40 g ash
sample^).
Measured Concentrations Calculated Concentrations
SPONGES
X Ash Content =
8.36% Wet Wt(7)
COELENTERATES
X Ash Content =
2.22% Wet Wt(8)
ASTEROIDS
* Ash Content =
13.54% Wet Wt(9)
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
<1.15xlO-3*-<1.28xlO-1
<8.49x10-3-<9.45x10-1
Yes?
295 g wet wt
None
None
A-67
-------
Table 2, Part 2, Continued
Measured Concentrations Calculated Concentrations
ECHINOIDS
X Ash Content =
34.26% Wet Wt(9)
OPHIUROIOS
X Ash Content =
25.73% Wet Wt(9)
HOLOTHURIANS
X Ash Content =
4.60% Wet Wt(9)
POLYCHAETES
X Ash Content =
4.41% Wet Wt(lQ)
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
<3.70xlO-4*-<5.92xlO-3*
<1.08xlO-3-
-------
Table 2, Part 2, Continued
Measured Concentrations Calculated Concentrations
CRUSTACEANS
X Ash Content =
6.23% Wet
FISHES
X Ash Content =
3.19% Wet Wt(12)
whole
1.45% Wet WtO 3)
soft parts
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
None
None
<2.26xlO-3*_<6.92x10-2*
<3.63xlQ-2-
-------
Table 2. SUMMARY OF MEASURED AND CALCULATED AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN DEEP-SEA
ORGANISMS AND SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS FOR THEIR DETECTION AT THE MINIMUM EXPECTED
CONCENTRATION.
Part 3: N1ckel-63; minimum detection level = 7.78xlO~3 Bq/g wet 1n a 25 g wet wt
sample^).
Measured Concentrations Calculated Concentrations
SPONGES
X Ash Content =
8.36% Wet
COELENTERATES
X Ash Content =
2.22% Wet Wt(8)
ASTEROIDS
X Ash Content =
13.54% Wet Wt(9)
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
A-70
-------
Table 2, Part 3, Continued
Measured Concentrations Calculated Concentrations
ECHINOIDS
X Ash Content =
34.26% Wet Wt(9)
OPHIUROIDS
X Ash Content =
25.73% Wet Wt(9)
HOLOTHURIANS
X Ash Content =
4.60% Wet Wt(9)
POLYCHAETES
X Ash Content =
4.41% Wet Wt(1Q)
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N.D.
N.O.
None
N.D.
N.D.
None
N.D.
N.D.
None
N.O.
N.D.
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
A-71
-------
Table 2, Part 3, Continued
Measured Concentrations Calculated Concentrations
CRUSTACEANS
X Ash Content =
6.23% Wet Wt(]1)
FISHES
X Ash Content =
3.19% Wet Wt(12)
whole
soft parts
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
None
None
N.D.
N.D.
None
None
None
(macrourld),
<7.03X10-3 -<7.78xlO-3*
(muscle)
<4.85xlO-"1-<5.37xlO-1
No?
None
None
None
A-72
-------
Table 2. SUMMARY OF MEASURED AND CALCULATED AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN DEEP-SEA
ORGANISMS AND SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS FOR THEIR DETECTION AT THE MINIMUM EXPECTED
CONCENTRATION.
Part 4: Strontium-90; minimum detection level = 1.23xlO~2 Bq/g ash 1n a 3 g ash
sample^).
Measured Concentrations Calculated Concentrations
SPONGES
X Ash Content =
8.36% Wet Wt(7)
COELENTERATES
X Ash Content =
ASTEROIDS
X Ash Content =
13.54% Wet Wt(9)
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
None
None
None
None
1.93xlO-5-3.86xlO-5
8.69xlO-4-l.74xlO-3
No
None
None
3.70x10-5
(excluding scleractlnlans)
1.67xlO-7
No
<2.96xlO-7-<3.70xlO-7
(excluding scleractlnlans)
<1.33xlO-5-
-------
Table 2, Part 4, Continued
Measured Concentrations Calciliated Concentratlons
ECHINOIDS
X Ash Content =
34.26% Wet Wt(9)
OPHIUROIOS
X Ash Content =
25.73% Wet Wt(9)
HOLOTHURIANS
X Ash Content =
4.60% Wet
POLYCHAETES
X Ash Content =
4.41% Wet WtO°)
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
None
None
None
None
(separate oral discs, arms)
<2.51xlO-4-<3.52x10-4
<9.76xlO-4-
-------
Table 2, Part 4, Continued
Measured Concentrations Calculated Concentrations
CRUSTACEANS
X Ash Content =
6.23% Wet
FISHES
X Ash Content =
3.19% Wet Wt02)
whole
1.45% Wet Wt(13)
soft parts
53.97% Dry
bone
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
None
None
None
None
(bone)
<3.57xlQ-4-<5.06xlO-4
<1 .48x10-3-
<2.74x!0-3-<3.89xlO-3
No?
.llxlO~6-l.04xlO-5
.78xlO-5-l.67xlO-4
No
<8.88xlO-7-
-------
Table 2. SUMMARY OF MEASURED AND CALCULATED AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN DEEP-SEA
ORGANISMS AND SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS FOR THEIR DETECTION AT THE MINIMUM EXPECTED
CONCENTRATION.
Part 5: Ces1um-l37; minimum detection level - 4.63xlO"3 Bq/g ash 1n a 40 g ash
sample^).
Measured Concentrations Calculated Concentrations
SPONGES
X Ash Content =
8.36% Wet Wt(7>
COELENTERATES
X Ash Content =
2.22% Wet Wt(8)
ASTEROIDS
X Ash Content =
13.54% Wet Wt(9)
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
None
N.O.
N.D.
4.83x10-5-9.66x10-5
2.18xlO-3-4.35xlO-3
No
N.D.
N.D.
None
None
None
None
<1.71x10-3-9.44x10-3
<7.70x10-2-4.25X10-1
Yes?
1802 g wet wt
2.10xlO-7-5.81xlO-7
9.46xlO-6-2.62xlO-5
No
<4.80xlO-4-2.56x10-3
<3.55xlO-3-l.89X10-2
No?
5.91xlO-8-l.
4.36xlO-7-7.75xlO-6
No
No
A-76
-------
Table 2, Part 5, Continued
Measured Concentrations Calculated Concentrations
ECHINOIOS
X Ash Content =
34.26% Wet Wt(9)
OPHIUROIOS
X Ash Content =
25.73% Wet Wt<9)
HOLOTHURIANS
X Ash Content =
4.60% Wet Wt(9)
POLYCHAETES
X Ash Content =
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
7.40xlO-4-7.73xlO-3
2.16xlO-3-2.26xlO-2
No
None
<6.55xlO-2*-
-------
Table 2, Part 5, Continued
Measured Concentrations Calculated Concentrations
CRUSTACEANS
X Ash Content =
6.23% Wet
FISHES
X Ash Content =
3.19% Wet WtO2)
whole
1.45% Wet Wt(13)
soft parts
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
6.35xlO-4
1 .44xlO-2
Yes
907 g wet wt
<2.15xlO-3*-l.59xlO-2
<3.45xlO-2-2. 55X10-"1
Yes?
642 g wet wt
8.40xlO-6-3.51xlO-5
1 .35xlO-4-5.63xlO-4
No
<1 .48xlO-4*-l.48xlO-3
(whole)
<4.64x10-3-4.64xlO-2
Yes?
sampling requirement: 1254 g wet wt
. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
(muscle)-2.83x!0-4
(muscle) ? -1.95x10-2
No?
1.OOxlO-7-9.20xlO-3
2.27xlO-6-2.09xl(H
No
<1.63xlO-3*-8.30x10-2
<2.62x10-2-1.33
Yes?
642 g wet wt
2.OOxlO~7-3.41xlO-5
3.21xlO-6-5.47xlO-4
No
<4.63xlO-9*-2.85xlO-"1*
<1.45xlO-7-8.93
No?
6.26xlO-8-l.17xlQ-4
1.96xlO-5-3.67xlO-3
No?
* Based on CF 1n muscle of Coryphaenoides spp.
**Based on CFs 1n whole fish of any species.
A-78
-------
Table 2. SUMMARY OF MEASURED AND CALCULATED AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN DEEP-SEA
ORGANISMS AND SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS FOR THEIR DETECTION AT THE MINIMUM EXPECTED
CONCENTRATION.
Part 6: Plutonlum-239, 240; minimum detection level = 3.70xlQ-3 Bq/g ash In a 1 g
ash sample^6).
Measured Concentrations Calculated Concentrations
SPONGES
X Ash Content =
8.36% Wet Wt(7)
COELENTERATES
X Ash Content =
2.22% Wet Wt(8)
ASTEROIDS
X Ash Content =
13.54% Wet Wt(g)
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
None
None
None
None
None
None
4.66xlO-6-l.05xlO-3
5.57xlO-5-l.26xlO-2
No
2.73xlO-6-<7.01xlO-5
3.27xTO-5-<8.39xlO-4
No
6.11xTO-7-8.25xTO-5
(excluding
scleractlnlans)
2.75xlO-5-3.72xlO-3
No
3.58xlO-7-<5.51xlQ-6
(excluding
scleractlnlans)
1.61xl8-5-<2.48xlO-4
No
1.67xT5-6-l.38xlO-3
1.23xlO~5-l.
No
9.81xlO-7-<9.19xlO-5
7.25xlO-6-<6.79xlO-4
No
A-79
-------
Table 2, Part 6, Continued
Measured Concentrations Calculated Concentrations
ECHINOIDS
X Ash Content =
34.26% Wet Wt(9)
OPHIUROIDS
X Ash Content =
25.75% Wet Wt(9)
HOLOTHURIANS
X Ash Content =
4.60% Wet Wt<9)
POLYCHAETES
X Ash Content =
4.41% Wet Wt(10)
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
None
None
None
None
3.35xlO-5
1.30xlO-4
No
None
5.85X10-5
1 .27xlO-3
2.81xlO-6-3.SOxlO-4
1.09x10-5-1.48xlO-4
No
1.65xlO-6-<2.54x10-5
6.41xlO-6-<9.87x10-5
No
None
No
None
None
None
5.06xlO-9-2.05x10-3
1.15xlO-7-4.65xlO-2
No
A-80
-------
Table 2, Part 6, Continued
Measured Concentrations Calculated Concentrations
CRUSTACEANS
X Ash Content =
6.23% Wet
FISHES
X Ash Content =
3.19% Wet Wt(12)
whole
soft parts
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
None
None
8.18xlO-6-8.85xlO-6
1.31xlO-4-l.42xlO~4
No
(muscle)
2.67xlQ-7-l.40xlO-6
1.84x10-5-9.66x10-5
No
None
1.34xlO-8-
-------
Table 2. SUMMARY OF MEASURED AND CALCULATED AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN DEEP-SEA
ORGANISMS AND SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS FOR THEIR DETECTION AT THE MINIMUM EXPECTED
CONCENTRATION.
Part 7: Amer1c1um-24l ; minimum detection level = 3.70xlO~3 Bq/g ash 1n a 1 g ash
Measured Concentrations Calculated Concentrations
SPONGES
X Ash Content =
8.36% Wet
COELENTERATES
X Ash Content =
2.22% Wet Wt(8)
ASTEROIDS
X Ash Content =
13.54% Wet Wt(9)
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
A-82
-------
Table 2, Part 7, Continued
Measured Concentrations Calculated Concentrations
ECHINOIOS
X Ash Content =
34.26% Wet Wt(9)
OPHIUROIOS
X Ash Content =
25.73% Wet Wt(9)
HOLOTHURIANS
X Ash Content =
4.60% Wet Wt<9)
POLYCHAETES
X Ash Content =
4.41% Wet Wt(10)
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
1.77xlO-5_3.04xlO-5
3.85xlO-4-6.61xlO-4
No
None
1.81xlO-7-3.01xlO-7
7.03xlO-7-l.17xlO-6
No
None
None
6.02xlO-8-l.OOxlO-7
1.31xlO-6-2.17xlO-6
No
6.56x10-10-3.01xlO-7
1.49X10-8 -6.83X10-6
No
A-83
-------
Table 2, Part 7, Continued
Measured Concentrations Calculated Concentrations
CRUSTACEANS
X Ash Content =
6.23% Wet
FISHES
X Ash Content =
3.19% Wet WtC12)
whole
soft parts
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Atlantic
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
N. Pacific
total range (Bq/g wet):
total range (Bq/g ash):
detectable minimum?:
sampling requirement:
None
None
1 .OOxlO-8-2.35x10-5
2.27xlO-7-5.33xlO-4
No
None
9.02xlO-7-l.50xlO-6
1 .45xlO-5_2.41xlO-5
No
(muscle)
2.17xlO-7-4.70xlO-7
1 .50xlO-5-3.24xlO-5
No
None
7.53xlO-8-l.35xlO-5
1 .21xlO-6-2.17xlO-4
No
None
None
A-84
-------
Table 2. Footnotes
1. No references concerning the minimum detection level of Fe55 1n biological samples could
be located either through literature searches or through conversations with personnel at
the EPA Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility, Montgomery. Alabama. The given value
represents the lowest reported concentration of Fe55 that has been directly measured in
deep-sea organisms (0.95 Bq/kg wet wt macrourld flesh; Park et al., 1983), expressed on an
ash weight basis (9.5xlO~4 Bq/g wet wt x .01451/1.0 g gadlform flesh 1.38xlO~5 Bq/g
ash; ash content value 1s the mean ash content of the soft parts of gadlforms tested in
Vlnogradov (1953), pp. 473-474. Typically, an aliquot of the 40-g ash sample used for
Co60 and Cs137 analysis 1s taken and used for Fe55 analysis (pers. comm., Mark
Semler, EPA Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility, Montgomery, Alabama); therefore, a
sample of 40 g ash 1s a conservative estimate of the probable size of ash sample required
for Fe55 analysis. Radlochemical separation followed by liquid scintillation is the
normal procedure for Fe55 analysis (M. Semler, pers. comm.).
2. Based on analysis of a 40 g-ash sample, using a germanium system, with a minimum detectable
activity of 5 pd/sample. According to Mark Semler (pers. comm., EPA Eastern Environmental
Radiation Facility, Montgomery, Alabama), a Nal or germanium system is used to analyze
Co60. A germanium system provides greater sensitivity. With a germanium system, the
minimum detectable activity 1s 3-5 pd/sample; the sample is Ideally 40 g ash, but as
little as 10 g can be used; normal counting time 1s 1000 min. With a Nal system and a
typical 50 m1n count, the minimum detectable activity 1s 35-40 pC1/40 g ash sample; this
can be Improved slightly if a well detector is used and counting time is Increased, but 1t
can never attain the sensitivity of a germanium system.
3. U.S. Navy (1984) reports minimum detectable activities of N163 in the flesh of
Coryphaenoldes armatus to range from 0.19-0.21 pC1/g wet in samples of approximately 25 g
wet wt. 0.21 pd/g wet « 7.78xlQ-3 Bq/g wt.
4. Based on a minimum detectable activity of 1 pd/sample in a 3 g ash sample. U.S. EPA
(1984) gives 1 pd/1 as the minimum detectable level of Sr9^ 1n milk and water; according
to Geraldlne Luster (pers. comm., EPA Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility, Montgomery
Alabama), 1 pd/sample is the minimum detectable level of Sr9^ 1n solid samples.
Lleberman (1984) recommends a sample size of 3-10 g ash, with 3 g considered the Ideal
sample size (G. Luster, pers. comm.).
5. Based on analysis of a 40 g ash sample, using a germanium system, with a minimum detectable
activity of 5 pd/sample. According to Mark Semler (pers. comm. EPA Eastern Environmental
Radiation Facility, Montgomery, Alabama), Cs137 1s analyzed 1n the same manner as Co60
and the same sampling requirement considerations apply. See notes for Co60, (2) above.
6. Based on a minimum detectable activity of 0.1 pd/g ash in a 1 g ash sample. U.S. EPA
(1984) gives 0.015 pd/sample ash as the minimum detectable level of 238,239pu ^n alr,
milk, and water. According to Geraldlne Luster (pers. comm., EPA Eastern Environmental
Radiation Facility, Montgomery, Alabama), however, whereas 0.015 pd/1 g ash sample 1s
often given as the minimum detectable level of 239,240pu and Am24', operationally,
0.1 pd/1 g ash sample 1s a better estimate.
A-85
-------
7. Mean ash content of poMferans listed 1n Vlnogradov (1953), Table 100, p. 178.
8. Mean ash content of achlnlaMans listed In Vlnogradov (1953), Table 113, p. 197.
9. Mean ash content of various echlnoderm classes 1n Vlnogradov (1953), Table 142, p. 247.
10. Mean ash content of polychaetes listed 1n Vlnogradov (1953), Table 135, pp. 233-234.
11. Mean ash content of amphlpods listed 1n Vlnogradov (1953), Table 231, p. 378.
12. Mean ash content of gadlform fishes (whole) listed 1n Vlnogradov (1953), Table 290,
pp. 500-501.
13. Mean ash content of gadlform fishes (flesh) listed 1n Vlnogradov (1953). Table 278,
pp. 473-474.
14. Mean ash content of fish bone 1n Vlnogradov (.1953), Table 323, p. 561.
A-86
-------
SUMMARY
As 1s readily seen 1n Tables 1 and 2, our current knowledge of
ambient concentrations of potential waste radlonucUdes 1n deep-sea
organisms 1s very Incomplete. Of the 126 unique taxon-radlonucllde-ocean
combinations (7 nuclldes x 9 taxa x 2 oceans) for which estimates of
ambient concentrations were sought 1n this data review, a measured
estimate 1s available for 30, a calculated estimate 1s available for 56,
a measured or a calculated estimate for 63, and a measured and a
calculated estimate for 23. For no single nucllde are there estimates
available for Its ambient concentration 1n all taxa, regardless of the
ocean 1n which they were sampled, although there are estimates of the
ambient concentration of Cs^T ^n a]] taxa considered but the sponges,
and estimates of the ambient concentration of Pu^39 ^n an taxa but
echlnolds. The fewest data are available for N163; there 1s an
estimate of Its ambient concentration 1n only fish muscle. Fishes
comprise the only taxon for which estimates are available of the ambient
concentrations of every nucllde 1n at least one ocean. Among the
Invertebrates, estimates 1n at least one ocean of the ambient
concentrations of all nuclldes except N1*>3 are available for ophlurolds
and crustaceans, while 1n sponges an estimate of the concentration of
only Pu239 is available.
Considering the estimates of the ambient concentrations of potential
waste nuclldes that are available, certain trends are evident. First, on
the basis of the total range of both measured and calculated estimates
for both the North Atlantic and North Pacific, polychaetes consistently
exhibit lower ambient concentrations of any particular nucllde than most
other taxa. Conversely, echlnolds, ophlurolds, and crustaceans tend to
have higher ambient concentrations of any particular nucllde than do
other taxa. Coelenterates, asteroids, holothurlans, and fishes, however,
can exhibit either very high or very low ambient concentrations of
nuclldes relative to other taxa. Second, comparing the total ranges
across all taxa of the ambient concentrations of each nucllde, Pu239
and Am241 typically occur at concentrations of 1Q-9 to TO"4 Bq/g
wet wt, while Fe55 and Sr90 tend to occur at sllghtlv higher
concentrations of 1Q-7 to 10~3 Bq/g wet wt. The Cob° and Cs137
exhibit very variable concentrations 1n different taxa, with
concentrations ranging from less than 10~9 to 10"1. Third, for 12 of
the 22 unique taxon-radlonucUde combinations for which there are
estimates available of ambient concentrations 1n both the North Atlantic
and North Pacific, the ranges of estimate for the two oceans broadly
overlap. For nine of the remaining 10 combinations, however, the
estimated concentrations 1n the North Atlantic are higher than 1n the
North Pacific. Fourth, 1n comparing the calculated versus the measured
estimates of ambient concentrations made for the 23 taxon-radlonucUde
combinations 1n which both types of estimates are available, calculated
and measured estimates show broad overlap 1n 20 cases.
A-87
-------
Comparing the available estimates of ambient concentrations of
potential low-level waste rad1onucl1des 1n various deep-sea taxa to the
minimum activities of those nuclldes that can be detected through
standard radloanalytlcal procedures, such as those used by the Eastern
Environmental Radiation Facility of the Environmental Protection Agency
(see Table 2, Footnotes, for details), 1t appears that ambient levels of
most of the nuclldes considered may not be detectable unless more
sensitive procedures are used. Indeed, 1f the minimum detectable
activities cited for the various nuclldes 1n Table 2 are reasonable
Indications of the levels of sensitivity that would be attained 1n a
monitoring program, only Fe^5 appears to be consistently detectable at
minimum concentrations. Co^O, Cs^V, and Pu^39( however, would
only be detectable If ambient concentrations were higher than the minimum
estimated, and then only for certain taxa. The Sr^O and Am^^l would
not be detectable 1n any taxa even 1f they occurred at concentrations as
great as the maximum estimated. Too little Information 1s available for
N163 to even conjecture about the likelihood of Its detectabl IHy 1n
deep-sea organisms. Depending on the taxa and nucllde, the amount of
tissue required for radloanalysls, 1f Indeed detection 1s possible,
varies from hundreds of grams to kilograms wet weight.
It cannot be overemphasized that estimates of the ambient
concentrations of the various radlonucHdes considered here are tentative
at best and have large errors associated with them. The estimates do
suggest, however, that within a specified taxon, the ambient
concentrations of any nucllde will generally be very low, but still may
vary by orders of magnitude depending on any number of factors Including
geographic location. On the basis of these estimates, 1t 1s not possible
to suggest a specific set of nuclldes and taxa to sample for the purpose
of monitoring potential b1ocontam1nat1on at sites of low-level waste
disposal; the sampling strategy must be decided on a case-by-case basis,
with careful consideration being given to the sensitivity of the
radloanalytlcal techniques to be used 1n monitoring and to local ambient
levels of radlonucHdes.
A-88
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Am1ard-Tr1quet C. 1975. Etude compartlve de la contamination par le
cobalt 60 et le cesium 137 de quelques Invertebres maMns foulsseurs.
V1e et Milieu, Serie A, B1olog1e Marine 25:19-40.
Aston S.R., and S.W. Fowler. 1984. Experimental studies on the
bloaccumulatlon of plutonlum from sea water and a deep-sea sediment by
clams and polychaetes. J. Environ. Rad. 1:67-78.
Avargues M., AncelUn J., and A. V1lqu1n. 1968. Recherches
experlmentales sur 1'accumulatlon des radlonucleldes par les organlsmes
marlns. Revue Internationale Oceanographle Medlcale 11:87-100.
Baptist J.P., and T.J. Price. 1962. Accumulation and retention of
ceslum-137 by marine fishes. Fisheries Bulletin 206:177-187.
Barnes R.D. 1974. Invertebrate Zoology (3rd ed.). W.B. Saunders Co.,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 870 pp.
Beasley T.M., and S.W. Fowler. 1976. Plutonium and amerldum: uptake
from contaminated sediment by the polychaete Nereis dlverslcolor. Mar.
B1ol. 38:95-100.
Beasley T.M., and E.E. Held. 1969. N1ckel-63 In marine and terrestrial
biota, soil, and sediment. Science 164:1161-1163.
Bonotto S., Bossus A., Nuyts G., Klrchmann R., CantHlon G., and
R. Declerck. 1978. Contamination d'organlsmes marlns par le H-3, le
Cs-134 et le Co-60. Revue Internationale Oceanographle Medlcale
49:127-133.
Bonotto S., Carraro G., Stract S., Luttke A., Colard J., Koch G., and
R. Klrchman. 1981. Ten years of Investigation on radioactive
contamination of the marine environment. Pp. 649-660 In: Impacts of
Rad1onucl1de Releases Into the Marine Environment. International Atomic
Energy Agency, Vienna, 748 pp.
Bowen V.T. 1980. Radlonucl1des In Pacific water columns and 1n deep sea
amphlpods, Appendix AA. Pp. 587-600 In: Subseabed Disposal Program
Annual Report Jan.-Dec. 1980, Vol. II, Pt. 2. K.R. H1nga, ed. Sandla
National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, SAND81-1095/II, 974 pp.
Bowen V.T., and H.D. Livingston. 1981. Rad1onucl1de distributions 1n
sediment cores retrieved from marine radioactive waste dumpsltes.
Pp. 33-63 In: Impact of Rad1onucl1de Releases Into the Marine
Environment. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 748 pp.
A-89
-------
Bowen V.T., Livingston H.O., and J.C. Burke. 1976. Distributions of
transuranium nuclldes 1n sediment and biota of the North Atlantic Ocean.
Pp. 107-118 In: Transuranium Nuclldes 1n the Environment, Proceedings
Symposium, San Francisco, 1975. IAEA, Vienna.
Bowen V.T., Noshkln V.E., Livingston H.D., and H.L. Volchok. 1980.
Fallout radlonuclldes 1n the Pacific Ocean: Vertical and horizontal
distributions, largely from GEOSECS stations. Earth and Planetary
Science Letters 49:411-434.
Bryan G.W. 1963. The accumulation of radioactive caesium by marine
Invertebrates. J. Mar. B1ol. Assoc. U.K. 43:519-539.
Bryan G.W., and E. Ward. 1962. Potassium metabolism and the
accumulation of !37-caes1um by decapod Crustacea. J. Mar. B1ol
U.K. 42:199-241.
Assoc
Cigna A.A., Ferraris M.M., GlorcelH 'F.G., and C.L. Papucd. 1963. Some
measurements of fallout contamination 1n the Mediterranean Sea. Pp. 95
In: The Proceedings of a Symposium on Nuclear Detonations and Marine
Radioactivity. S.H. Small, ed. Norwegian Defense Research
Establishment, Kjeller.
Cole C.J., and B.L. Carson. 1981. Cobalt 1n the food chain.
Pp. 777-924 In: Trace Metals 1n the Environment, Vol. 6 - Cobalt: An
Appraisal of Environmental Exposure. I.C. Smith, and B.L. Carson, eds.
Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1201 pp.
Dougherty G., and C.E. Ng. 1982. 137Cs and 40K levels 1n marine
species caught 1n Malaysian water. Health Physics 43:915-919.
Feldt W., Kanlsh G., and R. Lauer. 1981. Radioactive contamination of
the NEA dumping sites. Pp. 465-480 In: Impacts of Rad1onucl1de Releases
Into the Marine Environment. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna,
748 pp.
Fisher N.S., Bjerregaard P., and S.W. Fowler.
marine plankton with transuranlc elements. 3.
1n euphaus11ds. Mar. B1ol. 75:261-268.
1983. Interactions of
B1ok1net1cs of amerlclum
Fowler S.W., Heyraud M., and T.M. Beasley. 1975. Experimental studies
of plutonlum kinetics 1n marine biota. Pp. 157-177 In: Impacts of
Nuclear Releases Into the Aquatic Environment. International Atomic
Energy Agency, Vienna, 526 pp.
Fra1z1er A., and J.C. Guary. 1976. Recherche d'1nd1cateurs blologlques
appropMes au controle de la contamination du littoral par le plutonlum.
Pp. 679 In: Transuranium Nuclldes 1n the Environment, Proceedings
Symposium, San Francisco, 1975. IAEA, Vienna.
A-90
-------
G1lat E., Lalchter Y., and N.H. ShafMr. 1975. Behaviour of caeslum-137
1n the marine environment. Pp. 63-76 In: Impact of Nuclear Releases
Into the Aquatic Environment. International Atomic Energy Agency,
Vienna, 526 pp.
Grille M.C., Guary J.C., and S.W. Fowler. 1981. Comparative studies on
transuranium nucllde b1ok1net1cs 1n sediment-dwelling Invertebrates.
Pp. 273-291 In: Impacts of Rad1onucl1de Releases Into the Marine
Environment. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 750 pp.
Guary J.C., Fowler S.W., and T.M. Beasley. 1982. Routes of plutonlum
uptake and their relation to blomagnlf1cat1on 1n starfish. Mar. Poll.
Bull. 13:99-102.
Guary J.C., and A. Fra1z1er. 1977. Influence of trophic level and
calcification on the uptake of plutonlum observed, 1_n situ, 1n marine
organisms. Health Physics 32:21-28.
Guary J.C., Masson M., and A. Fra1z1er. 1976. Etude prel1m1na1re, 1n
situ, de la distribution du plutonlum dans dlfferents tlssus et organes
de Cancer pagurus (Crustacea: Decapoda) et de Pleuronectes platessa
(Pisces: Pleuronectldae). Mar. B1ol. 36:13-17.
Harrison F.L. 1985. Laboratory-Determined Concentration Factors and
Elimination Rates of Some Anthropogenic Rad1onucl1des 1n Marine
Vertebrates and Invertebrates. U.S. EPA, Lawrence Llvermore Laboratory,
Llvermore, California.
Hartman 0., and K. Fauchald. 1971. Deep-water Benthlc Polychaetous
Annelids Off New England to Bermuda and Other North Atlantic Areas, Pt.
II. Allan Hancock Monographs 1n Marine Biology, No. 6. Allan Hancock
Foundation, Univ. Southern California, Los Angeles.
Hlyama Y. 1962. Studies on the Uptake of Rad1o1sotopes by Edible Marine
Products. Progress Reports, Tokyo University, 1960-1962, Report No.
NP-15159.
Hlyama Y., and J.M. Khan. 1964. On the concentration factors of
radioactive I, Co, Fe, and Ru 1n marine organisms. Rec. Oceanog. Works
Japan. 7:79-106.
Hoppenhelt M., Murray C.N., and D.S. Woodhead.
of amer1dum-24l on a brackish-water amphlpod.
Meeresuntersuchungen. 33:138-152.
1980. Uptake and effects
Helgolander
Ichlkawa R., and S. Ohno. 1974. Levels of cobalt, cesium, and zinc 1n
some marine organisms 1n Japan. Bull. Japan Soc. Sd. F1sh. 40:501-508.
A-91
-------
Jackson D.W., Gomez L.S., and M.G. Marietta. 1983. Compilation of
Selected Marine Rad1oecolog1cal Data for the U.S. Subseabed Program.
Sandla National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, SAND83-1725,
237 pp.
Jennings C.D., and S.W. Fowler. 1980. Uptake of Fe-55 from contaminated
sediments by the polychaete Nereis dlverslcolor. Mar. B1ol. 56:277-280.
Kurabayashl M., Fukuda S., and Y. Kurokawa. 1980. Concentration factors
of marine organisms used for environmental dose assessment. Pp. 335-348
In: Marine Radloecology, Proceedings Third NEA Seminar, Tokyo, 1979.
OECD, Paris, 409 pp.
Lleberman R., ed. 1984. Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility
Rad1ochem1stry Procedures Manual. U.S. EPA, Office of Radiation
Programs, Montgomery, Alabama, EPA 520/5-84-006.
Livingston H.O., and V.T. Bowen. 1979. Pu and Cs-137 1n coastal
sediments. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 43:29-45.
Madsen F.J. 1966a. Asteroldea. Rpts. Swed. Oeep-Sea Expeditions
1966b. Oph1uro1dea. Rpts. Swed. Oeep-Sea Expeditions
Mlramand P., Germain P., and H. Camus. 1982. Uptake of amerldum and
Plutonium from contaminated sediments by three benthlc species:
Arenlcola marina. Corophlum volutator and Scrobicularla plana. Mar.
Ecology - Prog. Series 7:59-65.
Mitchell N.T., and R.J. Pentreath. 1982. Monitoring 1n the North-East
Atlantic Ocean for the dumping of packaged radioactive waste. Pp. 120
In: Radioactive Protection - Advances 1n Theory and Practice,
Proceedings Third International Symposium of the Society for Radiological
Protection, Inverness, 1982, Vol. 1. Conference 820613, 1982.
Mortensen T.
II(3):45-48.
1966. Ech1no1dea. Rpts. Swed. Deep-Sea Expeditions
Murray C.N., and W. Renfro. 1976. Uptake of plutonlum from seawater and
sediment by a marine polychaete worm. J. Ocean. Soc. Japan. 32:249-252.
Nakahara M., Hlrano S., Ish11 T., and T. Koyanagl. 1979. Accumulation
and excretion of cobalt-60 taken up from seawater by marine fish. Bull.
Japan. Soc. Sc1. F1sh. 45:1423-1428.
A-92
-------
Nakahara M., Koyanagi T., and M. Sa1k1. 1977. Temperature effect on the
concentration of radlonucHdes by marine organisms. J. Rad. Res.
18:122-131 .
Nakahara, M., Ueda T., Suzuki Y., Ish11 T., and H. Suzuki. 1980.
Concentration factors of mesopelaglc organisms. Pp. 323-334 In: Marine
Radloecology. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development/
Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris, France, 409 pp.
Nev1ss1 A., and W.R. Schell. 1975. 210Po and 239Pu 1n biological
and water samples from the B1k1n1 and Enewetak Atolls. Nature
255:321-323.
Noshkln V.E. 1972. Ecological aspects of plutonlum dissemination 1n
aquatic environments. Health Physics 22:537-549.
Noshkln V.E. 1985. Concentrations and Concentration Factors of Several
Anthropogenic and Natural Rad1onucl1des 1n Marine Vertebrates and
Invertebrates. U.S. EPA, Office of Radiation Programs, Washington, D.C.,
EPA 520/1-84-028, 93 pp.
Noshkln V.E., Bowen V.T., Wong K.M., and J.C. Burke. 1973. Plutonium 1n
North Atlantic Ocean organisms: ecological relationships. Pp. 681-688
In: Rad1onucl1des 1n Ecosystems, Proceeding of the Third National
Symposium on Radloecology, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 1971. D.J. Nelson, ed.
United States Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C., USAEC
Conference 710501-P2.
Noshkln V.E., Wong K.M., Eagle R.J., and C. Gastrousls. 1975.
Transuranlcs and other radlonucHdes 1n B1k1n1 Lagoon: concentration
data retrieval from aged coral sections. Limnology and Oceanography
20(5):729-742.
Ortlns de Bettencourt A., Vaz Carrelro M.C., and M.M. Sequelra. 1980.
Contribution au controle radlologlque du milieu marln. Pp. 47-57 In:
Marine Radloecology, Proceedings Third NEA Seminar, Tokyo, 1979. OECO,
Paris, 409 pp.
Papadopoulou C., Karrlas G.D., and E. Mora1topoulou-Kass1mat1. 1976.
Stable elements of radloecologlcal Importance 1n certain echlnoderm
species. Mar. Poll. Bull. 7:143-149.
Park P.K., Kester D.R., Duedall I.W., and B.H. Ketchum. 1983.
Requirement for radioactive waste management 1n the ocean. Pp. 481-505
In: Wastes 1n the Ocean, Vol. 3: Radioactive Wastes and the Ocean.
P.K. Park, D.R. Kester, I.W. Duedall, and B.H. Ketchum, eds. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., New York, 522 pp.
A-93
-------
Pentreath R.J., and D.F. Jefferles. 1971. The uptake of radlonucHdes
by I-group plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) off the Cumberland Coast, Irish
Sea. J. Mar. B1ol. Assoc. U.K. 51:963-976.
Pollkarpov G.G. 1961. Ability of some Black Sea organisms to accumulate
fission products. Science 133:1127-1128.
Preston A., and D.F. Jefferles. 1969. Aquatic aspects 1n chronic and
acute contamination situations. Pp. 183-211 In: Environmental
Contamination by Radioactive Materials, Seminar, Agricultural and Public
Health Aspects of Environmental Contamination by Radioactive Materials,
Vienna, 1969. FAO/IAEA, Vienna.
Rowe G.T. 1983. Blomass and production of the deep-sea macrobenthos.
Pp. 97-121 In: The Sea, Vol. 8: Deep-Sea Biology. G.T. Rowe, ed. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 560 pp.
Schell W.R., and A.E. Nev1ss1. 1983.. Rad1onucl1des at the Hudson Canyon
disposal site. Pp. 183-214 In: Wastes 1n the Ocean, Vol. 3:
Radioactive Wastes and the Ocean. P.K. Park, O.R. Kester, I.W. Duedall,
and B.H. Ketchum, eds. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 522 pp.
Schell W.R., and S. Sugal. 1980. Rad1onucl1des at the U.S. radioactive
waste disposal site near the Farallon Islands. Health Physics 39:475-496
Sh1m1zu, M., Kajlhara T., and Y- Hlyama. 1970. Uptake of Co-60 by
marine animals. Rec. Oceanog. Works Japan. 10:137-145.
Smith K.L., Jr. 1978. Metabolism of the abyssopelaglc rattall
Coryphaenoides armatus measured Vn situ. Nature 274:362-364.
Ueda T., Nakamura R., and Y. Suzuki. 1977. Comparison of Influences of
sediments and sea water on accumulation of radlonucHdes by worms.
J. Rad. Res. 18:84-92.
Ueda T., Suzuki Y., and R. Nakamura. 1975. Accumulation of Sr 1n marine
organisms - II. The level of 90$r ^n marine organisms from the coastal
Sea of Japan. Bull. Japan. Soc. Sc1. F1sh. 41:691-698.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Environmental Radiation
Data, Report 39. July-September 1984. U.S. EPA, Office of Radiation
Programs, Montgomery. Alabama, EPA 520/5-85-009, 43 pp.
U.S. Navy. 1984. Radiological environmental monitoring at sites of
nuclear-powered submarine Thresher and Scorpion sinkings, annex to
Appendix D. Pp. D-A1 - D-A27 In: Final Environmental Impact Statement
on the Disposal of Decommissioned Defueled Naval Submarine Reactor
Plants, Vol. 1. U.S. Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C.
A-94
-------
Van As D., FouMe H.O., and M. Vleggaar. 1973. Accumulation of certain
trace elements 1n marine organisms from the sea around the Cape of Good
Hope. Pp. 615-623 In: Radioactive Contamination of the Marine
Environment. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 786 pp.
van Weers A.M. 1975. Uptake of cobalt-60 from seawater and from
labelled food by the common shrimp, Crangon crangon (I.). Pp. 349-361
In: Impacts of Nuclear Releases Into the Aquatic Environment.
International Atomic Energy Agency. Vienna, 526 pp.
van Weers A.W. 1980. Accumulation of trace metals 1n coastal marine
organisms. Pp. 303-311 In: Marine Radloecology. Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development/Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris,
France, 409 pp.
Vangenechten J.H.D., Aston S.R., and S.W. Fowler. 1983. Uptake of
amer1c1um-24l from two experimentally labelled sediment by three benthlc
species: a bivalve mollusc, a polychaete, and an Isopod. Mar. Ecology
Prog. Series 13:219-228.
Vlnogradov. A.P. 1953. The Elementary Chemical Composition of Marine
Organisms. Sears Foundation for Marine Research, Memoir II. Sears
Foundation for Marine Research, Yale University, New Haven, 647 pp.
Young J.S. 1982. Biological Fate of Cobalt-60 Released During the
Corrosion of Neutron-Activated Stainless Steel 1n Seawater. Pacific
Northwest Laboratory, RUhland, Washington, PNL-4217, UC-11.
A-95
-------
Appendix B
Glossary
-------
GLOSSARY
Abyssal - occurring at ocean depths between 4000 and 6000 m.
Acute - having a short, often Intense, duration.
Adsorption - adhesion as a thin layer of molecules to a solid surface,
e.g., sediment particles.
Amphlpod - a crustacean 1n the order Amphlpoda (e.g., sand fleas).
Bathyal - occurring at ocean depths between 200 and 4000 m.
Benthlc - on, 1n, or associated with the seafloor.
B1oaccumu1at1on - the accumulation, or concentration, of substances
(e.g., radlonucHdes) 1n organisms due to biological processes.
Blomass - the mass (or weight) of living tissue per unit area, or volume,
where appropriate.
B1oturbat1on - the mixing of sediments by organisms.
Box corer - a benthlc sampling device that collects a relatively
undisturbed cube of seafloor sediment.
Chronic - marked by long duration or frequent occurrence.
Deposit feeder - any organism that derives nutrition by consuming
sedlmented material.
Diversity - a parameter describing, 1n combination, the species richness
and evenness of a collection of species.
Ep1benth1c - occurring on the surface of the seafloor.
Eplfauna - eplbenthlc animals.
Genetic - relating to or caused by an organism's genes, or Inheritance.
Holothurlan - a member of the echlnoderm class Holothuroldea, or sea
cucumbers.
Indicator species - a species which strongly concentrates pollutants, or
1s strongly associated with particular environmental conditions, and
thus can be tested for, or used to Indicate, the presence of these
pollutants or conditions.
Infauna - animals living within the seafloor (usually 1n soft substrata).
Keystone species - a species that plays a major role, often
disproportionately to Its abundance or blomass, 1n maintaining
community structure.
Lvs1anass1d - an amphlpod 1n the family Lyslanassldae, which contains a
large number of mobile, scavenging species.
Macrofauna - benthlc animals less than ~2 cm 1n shortest dimension, and
retalnable on a 300 4ylm sieve.
Hacrourld - a rattall fish 1n the cod family Macrourldae.
Megafauna - animals larger than ~2 cm 1n smallest dimension, and
typically collected on the seafloor by trawls or censused
photographically.
Helofauna - benthlc animals that pass through a 300 4ylm sieve and are
retained on a 42 nylm sieve.
H1crob1ota - (= nanoblota) - benthlc organisms that pass through a
42 4ylm sieve.
Ho1pad11d - a holothurlan 1n the family Molpad11dae; typically, these sea
cucumbers are Infaunal, subsurface deposit feeders.
B-l
-------
Necrophage - a carrion feeder; scavenger.
Oph1iiro1d - an echinoderm in the class Ophiuroidea; a brittle star.
Pelagic of or relating to the water column.
Polychaete an annelid, or segmented, worm in the class Polychaeta; a
bristle worm.
Sessile - living attached to, or established in, the substratum; immobile
Somatic - of or relating to the body, as distinct from reproductive
tissue.
Suspension feeder - an organism that derives nutrition from a material
suspended in water.
Stauroteuthid - a cephalopod in the deep-sea family Stauroteuthidae.
Trawl - a large, conical net dragged along the seafloor to collect marine
life.
Trophic - of or relating to food or nutrition.
B-2
-------
Necrophage - a carrion feeder; scavenger.
Oph1iiro1d - an echinoderm in the class Ophiuroidea; a brittle star.
Pelagic of or relating to the water column.
Polychaete an annelid, or segmented, worm in the class Polychaeta; a
bristle worm.
Sessile - living attached to, or established in, the substratum; immobile
Somatic - of or relating to the body, as distinct from reproductive
tissue.
Suspension feeder - an organism that derives nutrition from a material
suspended in water.
Stauroteuthid - a cephalopod in the deep-sea family Stauroteuthidae.
Trawl - a large, conical net dragged along the seafloor to collect marine
life.
Trophic - of or relating to food or nutrition.
B-2
------- |