NSWC/WOL/TR 76-161 



An 80-foot (24.4-meter) self-propelled barge was used as the 

 experimental platform and a 17-foot (5.2 meter) boat was used for 

 charge-handling and for monitoring. The barge was equipped with 

 a Ross Fish Finder (Model 200-A Fine Line) . Prior to the 

 commencement of the explosion tests, the Ross transducer was 

 mounted for side-scanning as well as for standard vertical soundings, 

 but the lateral survey technique was not successful because the 

 transducer cone angle was too great and multiple signal reflections 

 occurred. 



Equipment and supplies on hand also included: a portable 

 fish-finder for use on the boat; a Navy range-finder; a trawl; 

 trawl boards for surface trawling and for bottom trawling; a 

 supply of one-liter plastic bottles; a supply of fluorescein dye; 

 and two-way radios. 



Naval Surface Weapons Center personnel were advised and assisted 

 by Mr. Greig Peters of the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory at 

 Solomons. Mr. Peters dissected the fish specimens that were 

 collected and assessed the levels of damage in accordance with the 

 criteria in Table 2.1. The experimental conditions are listed in 

 Table 3.1. 



3.2 Shot 1 



Shot 1 was a test with a special experimental explosive 

 composition weighing 4.3 kg. The main purpose was to collect water 

 samples and to analyze them for aluminum content. The charge was 

 placed 4.6 meters deep to assure thorough mixing of the explosion 

 products with the water. As the water depth was 24.4 meters, little 

 interaction with the bottom was expected. About 450 grams of 

 fluorescein dye tracer were placed in a flexible plastic container 

 0.30 meters above the charge. 



One water sample was obtained prior to the test and five samples 

 were collected in the surface pool at 30-second intervals from 35 

 seconds to 155 seconds after the explosion. One-liter plastic 

 bottles were used. The samples were subsequently analyzed at the 

 White Oak Laboratory with a Perkin-Elmer Model 303 atomic absorption 

 spectrophotometer. The background sample and the first three taken 

 in the pool did not contain aluminum at or above the 0.1 mg/1 

 detection limit of the instrumentation. However, the samples 

 collected at 125 and 155 seconds contained 0.2 mg/1 of aluminum. 



This result indicates that the pool was not thoroughly mixed 

 at early times and that the early samples were taken in relatively 

 clean parts of the pool. The 0.2 mg/1 concentration of dissolved 

 aluminum would not be hazardous to marine life. 



No dead fish were seen from the experimental platform. However, 

 seagulls were swooping down to pick up fish. A closer inspection 

 from the boat revealed the presence of small numbers of dead 



12 



