 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
CQD Journal for the Maritime Environment Industry Volume 1, #2 - November 1995, Copyright 1995 Edward M. Miller Associates, Inc. |
||
SOPEP OverviewTBT vs Tin Free Antifouling Paints Controlled Burning in Oil Spill Clean up |
||
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
||
FROM THE EDITOR Dear Clients and Friends: Welcome again. The marketing folks who specialize in
running conventions must have decided attendance is best if all the big year end conferences are out before the Thanksgiving holiday. Consequently, this fall brought a number of conferences in a very short season. So
far I have attended OPA '90 Demo, Maritime Environmental Symposium and Superfund with the International Dredging Conference still to come in late November. One of the best conferences to attend for the money is the OPA '90
demo. It's free. The Coast Guard puts on an excellent show, with three days of demos including an aerial dispersants demo using a US Army C-131, and an aerial boom deployment by a Coast Guard helicopter. Most of
the big oil spill response organizations have response ships and heavy equipment available for sightseeing and tours. Unfortunately the next OPA '90 demo is not scheduled until '97. My favorite exhibit was the underwater
remote submersible set up in Kings Point's swimming pool. In the manner of a life-sized video game, participants are allowed to try their hand at controlling the robot through a series of maneuvers. Suffice it to say,
it's a lot harder than it looks. We appreciate your feedback and suggestions on the last newsletter. Please enjoy and give us a call with any ideas you would like covered or questions. We will continue to evaluate and
implement your comments towards better meeting your business environmental needs. Chris Swanson Environmental Affairs Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plans (SOPEP) Overview
The April 4, 1995 deadline for SOPEP readiness has past. The following outline provided by CDR Rich Fitzpatrick USCG at the Maritime Environmental Symposium is a helpful guideline for additional information.
Background:
Purpose of a SOPEP
Contents of a SOPEP
Non-mandatory information
Enforcement - the US Coast Guard
In case of noncompliance:
TBT Tin vs Tin Free Bottom Paint Shipowners and operators were in attendance at the ASNE sponsored lecture given by Dr. Colin Anderson regarding Antifouling and the Environment and the Effect of Current and Projected Legislation . Representing International Paint, Dr. Anderson outlined current legislation and the difference in tin vs tin-free antifouling paints. TBT (tributyltin) tin based antifouling paints have been in use since post WW II. The last 20 years have shown significant improvements in these products, consequently giving rise to wide spread usage in the shipping industry. (See below "Technological Perspective" for a description of how they work.) Recent negative environmental findings however have mandated legislation limiting its use.Legislation has arisen against TBT tin paint due to deleterious effects on the shellfish industry, particularly damage to oyster and dog whelk shellfish. The chemical has been found to deform shells on the oysters and induce sex changes in the dog whelk, causing infertility. The US and Japan currently enforce restrictions on TBT copolymer paints. TBT-tin based bottom paint is banned entirely on commercial vessels in Japan and is banned on vessels under 25 meter LOA in the US. In addition, the US imposes a limit on the maximum amount of tin emitted or delivered of 4 mg tin/cm2 /day. Dr. Anderson argues that the advantages of TBT tin based paints outweigh the negative environmental impacts. He cites longer periods till dry-docking as well as nautical efficiencies thanks to cleaner hulls when compared to tin-free paints. Fewer dry-docking calls are advantageous, however classification society and insurance regulations have a greater influence over dry-docking frequency than do fouled bottoms. Tin free antifouling products are part of a young industry. TBT based paints have the advantage of 50 years of testing behind them. Given time, one hopes breakthroughs in the tin-free industry will emerge to make them competitively effective. In a nutshell, the controlled release delivery mechanism of TBT tin based paints works as follows; the covalently bonded TBT/copolymer forms a thin solubilisation layer between itself and ionically behaved seawater. Within this layer, portions of the biocide TBT/copolymer film change structure from planer to trigonal pyramidal, thereby converting the top layer of copolymer from hydrophobic to hydrophilic. This nanometer thick interface allows for finite release of antifouling biocide while preserving most of the TBT/copolymer film (C. Anderson, Self-polishing antifoulings: a scientific perspective, International Paint.) Return to Top
Controlled Burning in Oil Spill Clean-Up When we think of burning oil, Gulf War news depicting billowing columns of thick black smoke enter our thoughts. According to Richard Lazos of Oil Stop Inc. this is a misconception. His firm promotes the practice of burning oil slicks in open waters due to major oil spills. Below is a summary of items in his speech at OPA '90 Demo. Outlined are the advantages and disadvantages in enclosing spilled oil in fire and intentionally igniting it. Advantages
Disadvantages
Some areas of the US have approved oil slick burning. Significant education and changes in public perception are needed before burning becomes a regular spill fighting procedure throughout the world's ports. Return to Top |
|
|
|
|
CQD Journal for the Maritime Environment Industry is published by E.M. Miller Associates, Inc., Florham Park, NJ. www.cqdjournal.com All rights reserved. Copyright 1999. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This page last updated by Miller Associates: Thursday, June 05, 2003 |
|
|
|