NSWC/WOL/TR 76-161 



The cost of the dissection of specimens and evaluation of 

 physiological damage is more difficult to evaluate, but it 

 should not be excessive if a fully equipped biological laboratory 

 and a biologist familiar with the procedure are available. The 

 15 minutes per specimen shown in Table 4.1 is a rough average 

 that includes the recording of results. 



In the case of chemical monitoring, as outlined in Table 4.2, 

 Item I involves the least effort in the field and also provides 

 good quality data. Items II and III require more work in the 

 field and provide less accurate data, but can give results the same 

 day as the test and require less costly instrumentation than that 

 used in a laboratory. 



Method IV can also provide data at early times, though the 

 set-up, operation, and pick-up of equipment is relatively time- 

 consuming. Method V would require less time of field personnel. 

 Methods VI and VII produce the most data and eliminate the 

 problems of collecting representative samples by hand. Method 

 VII is doubtless the most expensive. However, in general, the cost 

 of chemical monitoring is greater than the cost of biological 

 monitoring. 



The time for the laboratory analysis of a sample obviously 

 depends on the nature of the procedure followed. The time of one 

 hour in Table 4.2 is only a rough average and actual costs should 

 be determined on a per case basis. 



The use of Chemical Monitoring Methods such as IV, V, VI, and 

 VII require the design and construction of special equipment. 

 Methods VI and VII would possibly require electronic engineers for 

 field operations and for the interpretation of records. 



If both biological and chemical monitoring are required on 

 the same tests, this can be done with the same crew if Methods I, 

 II, or III are followed in both cases. Chemical sampling should 

 be done first. If Method IV or V is used for chemical monitoring, 

 it would be difficult to operate a trawl unless trawling could be 

 delayed until the pool (and floating fish) had been carried down- 

 stream beyond the farthest sampler or until the array had been 

 hauled in. It would probably be impossible to use Method VI or 

 VII for chemical monitoring and also trawl for specimens of marine 

 life on the same test. 



4 . 2 Recommendations 



The actual extent of monitoring should be related to the nature 

 of the test; i.e., a test involving possibly harmful chemical 

 products should receive more attention than a TNT explosion; and 

 a large explosion near an important fishery should be planned and 

 monitored more extensively than a series of 2-kg explosions in a 

 barren environment. Also, on large-scale tests, more environmental 



27 



