Actually, contaminated soil must go either to an incinerator or more likely any of a number of licensed hazardous waste disposal facilities, all of which are closely monitored for leachate while the petroleum components degrade anaerobically.
Incinerator that uses what for fuel ?
That makes sense. Just like most other things
That only works on the volatile components, a small fraction of the residual hydrocarbon mass.
I didn't say it wasn't true. I said that in-water hull cleaning activities do not contribute a large amount of the copper that comes from anti fouling paints. I can't find the study that I typically quote available online in its entirety any more, but here is a summary of its findings:
Actually, what you said (wrote) is:I didn't say it wasn't true. I said that in-water hull cleaning activities do not contribute a large amount of the copper that comes from anti fouling paints. I can't find the study that I typically quote available online in its entirety any more, but here is a summary of its findings:
"Trace metals, especially copper, are commonly occurring contaminants in harbors and marinas. One source of copper to these environs is copper-based antifouling coatings used on vessel hulls. The objective of this study was to measure dissolved copper contributions from recreational vessel antifouling coatings for both passive leaching and hull cleaning activities. To accomplish this goal, three coating formulations, including hard vinyl, modified epoxy and a biocide free bottom paint were applied on fiberglass panels and placed in a harbor environment. In situ measurements of passive leaching were made using a recirculating dome system. Monthly average flux rates of dissolved copper for the hard vinyl and modified epoxy coatings were 3.7 and 4.3 microg/cm(2)/day, respectively, while flux rates for the biocide free coating was 0.2 microg/cm(2)/day. The highest passive flux rates were measured initially after cleaning activities, rapidly decreasing to a baseline rate within three days, regardless of copper-based coating formulation. Hull cleaning activities generated between 8.6 and 3.8 microg dissolved copper/cm(2)/event for the modified epoxy and hard vinyl coatings, respectively. Aggressive cleaning using an abrasive product doubled the copper emissions from the modified epoxy coating, but produced virtually no change in the much tougher hard vinyl coating. When compared on a mass basis, roughly 95% of copper is emitted during passive leaching compared to hull cleaning activities over a monthly time period for a typical 9.1 m power boat."
Copper emissions from antifouling paint on recreational vessels - PubMed
Trace metals, especially copper, are commonly occurring contaminants in harbors and marinas. One source of copper to these environs is copper-based antifouling coatings used on vessel hulls. The objective of this study was to measure dissolved copper contributions from recreational vessel...pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
It says that 95% of the copper contributed by anti fouling paints occurs during passive leaching, not in-water hull cleaning. You keep trying to make a point that nobody is arguing. Yes, cleaning an anti fouling paint releases copper. My point is that it doesn't release very much copper and certainly not enough to bring SIYB into EPA compliance should it be banned.
In the end this is the issue, where in the water does the copper end up. An ablative paint will release copper as the boat sails. As a result the copper is distributed over a large area and in a large body of water. When the hull is scrubbed and the same copper is released, it is in a small area, thus the concentration levels are higher.
Close, but not quite. The reason boat basins and marinas become impaired for copper is not because of in-water hull cleaning. It is because these (frequently poorly-flushed) basins are filled with boats that do move far or often and the anti fouling paints with which essentially every single one of them is painted are leaching biocide into the water 24/7/365. And that's true regardless of whether it is a hard paint or an ablative one.
It also says the loading rate from cleaning is 3X the passive rate. I tried explaining that before but repeating it apparently is futile so I’m done. Cherry picking one contradictory study is meaningless.
Bwahahahahaha! Maybe you should learn the definition of the words "acute" and "chronic"
As opposed to leaving the fuel contaminated soil where it was...... where it was degrading anaerobically and also being monitored.. at much lower cost. (to the detriment of the bottom line at the local enviro company)
Has that shown to be a truly big factor when the hull cleaning is periodic ?
Most boats aren't sailing... they usually sit at docks (supposedly sailing just 14 days a year on average) leeching that copper almost constantly in one spot.
Can often leach into groundwater contaminating both private and municipal water supplies, preventing redevelopment because of liability issues, causing municipalities to place deed or use restrictions because of in-situ contamination, can be transported laterally causing volatile organic air quality issues in nearby basements, etc.... are among the reasons not to leave it where it is.
I expected a response like that from you. Bye.Bwahahahahaha! Maybe you should learn the definition of the words "acute" and "chronic"
Exactly why land ownership transfer here requires a clean test result.
Wow. I wonder if they have ever analyzed what the contaminants are and what the level is for each. Surely that cant just be from antifouling regardless of whether it contains copper.
This is the problem with the internet. People who don't know what they are talking about making assumptions and posting them as if they were gospel. Of course the RWQCB has looked at other sources of copper. This particular issue has been studied for several decades.
Precisely.