DAY TWO Ray Arnold, Copper Development Association, Inc. – An overview of Copper Toxicity and Modifying Factors in Saltwater Environments Lars Tomasgard, Managing Director, NORDOX Industries AS. – Review
and Assessment of Studies Pertaining to Copper's Use in Antifouling.
Craig Meyer, Professor at the Center for Environmental Technology, Pierce College, LA – A Review of Copper Toxicity
Ron Gauthier, SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego, CA – Studies to
Support Site-Specific Water Quality Objectives for Copper in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
Geoff Swain, Florida Institute of Technology - A Non-Toxic Approach to Biofouling
ControlGerold S. Bohlander, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division –
Development and Demonstration of an Automated Paint Application, Containment and Treatment System
John P. Odwazny, UltraStrip Systems, Inc. – Antifouling and Hazardous Coating Removal: the M3500 Series Magnetic Air Gap Waterjetting Robotic Platform and System DAY THREE Gary C. Schafran, Professor Old Dominion University – Full Scale TBT Treatment and Washwater Characterization: Challenges and Advances Made Treating Shipyard Waters, 1999-2003
and Removal of TBT Using Granular Activated Carbon; Removal of TBT in Shipyard Waters Using Advanced Oxidation Processes
H. Stichnothe, Technical University of Hamburg, Dept. Environmental Science & Technology – TBT Decomposition in Dredged Material in a Pilot Scale; AND Green North Sea Docks: Development of the Best Environmental Practice for Decontaminating TBT Containing Waters in the North Sea Region
Based on Life-Cycle Assessment.
DAY TWO Ray Arnold, Copper Development Association, Inc. –
An overview of Copper Toxicity and Modifying Factors in Saltwater Environments
Email: RArnold@cda.copper.orgRArnold@cda.copper.org When the world's experts discuss toxicity they speak in terms of water quality criteria or WQC.
Typically a WQC is established that protects most of the species (usually 95%) most of the time. Based on testing, the governmental regulators responsible for WQC, such as the US EPA, come
up with a number that provides maximum protection. This will become the environmental policy.Arnold went over the USEPA testing policy that set up water quality criteria for copper. He
described a new model called the Biotic Ligand Model. The BLM seeks to determine a means of quantitatively evaluate the effects of other factors that affect copper toxicity and provide a
means to predict copper toxicity. Arnold reiterated a point made by many experts that in most cases it is the free metal copper ion that is important, more so than the total copper concentration. Lars Tomasgard, Managing Director, NORDOX Industries AS. – Review and Assessment of
Studies Pertaining to Copper's Use in Antifouling.
Email: n/aTomasgard proposed the question to the audience: Is copper an unacceptable risk for
antifouling? His presentation set about to prove that copper is an excellent biocide to use in antifouling. Copper is a natural compound in the environment. There are already many natural influxes of
copper such as volcanic, seabed, atmospheric and rivers. On a global scale copper is not a pollution of concern. Unfortunately, local regulators are claiming that certain water bodies are
at risk from copper inputs. Using a map, Tomasgard charted the results from numerous tests performed in Norway. Repeated results showed safe levels of copper in harbor waters. He discussed one study from
Western Norway where copper based antifoulants were being used on nets used to contain fish farming. The report found copper levels in the fish to be identical to those in ambient waters.
The use of copper to prevent net fouling had no affect on the quality of the fish. The regulations in Sweden ban ANY antifoulant for ANY boats on the east coast, and severe
limitations on antifoulants on the west coast. Denmark has banned antifoulants on any pleasure craft. Tomasgard says these recent regulatory changes came about thanks to one highly
controversial Dutch study that gave startling, yet unrepeatable, claims regarding toxicity from antifoulants. According to Tomasgard, the EU Committee on Eco-toxicity just completed a review of the
controversial study. They said the Dutch researchers survey was neither accurate nor proper, and their methodology displayed many shortcomings. The EU Committee's final report said
there was not sufficient scientific justification to support the Swedish or Danish bans on antifoulants. This may help boaters eventually, however the Sweden ban currently remains in effect.
Tomasgard points out that small boat owners are very unhappy and have little respect for the regulators that promulgated the ban. He and others are concerned that angry boat owners will
resort to illegal painting tactics, a practice that will certainly result in greater environmental harm than regulated boat painting. Craig Meyer, Professor at the Center for Environmental Technology, Pierce College, LA – A Review of Copper Toxicity
Email: cmeyer1@socal.rr.com In his summary review of copper toxicity, Meyer noted that although copper can be directly
and indirectly toxic, it is also a natural product in the environment. Organisms will adapt to varying levels of copper in their surroundings and there are many cases where populations
have developed a resistance to copper.Within the last two years, Meyer said that scientists have come to understand how organisms
react to varying toxicity of copper. It appears that cell contain proteins that de-toxify copper. These proteins are called copper chaperones.
Copper chaperone proteins will attach to copper ions in the cell, rendering it non-harmful. Meyer says that different organisms have varying levels of copper chaperones. Even the same
species will have different concentrations of copper chaperones depending on the environment that they have adapted to. According to Meyer, the new information about copper chaperones means that making a
meaningful environmental study on copper toxicity is consequently very difficult. Since individuals of the same species will vary to different copper loads, it invalidates the concept of
setting a regulated copper toxicity concentration. Ron Gauthier, SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego, CA
– Studies to Support Site-Specific Water Quality Objectives for Copper in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
Email: ron.gauthier@navy.mil
Preliminary research in the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard indicates that the waters do not show a high degree of copper toxicity. Gauthier's discussion was about the difficulty of changing
municipal regulatory rules, despite scientific evidence contrary to local opinion.Gauthier said the Navy is doing a lot of work to reduce the amount of copper coming from the
Pearl Shipyard. One of their major tasks will be to look at the entire Pearl Harbor water body and come up with determinations of where copper toxicity may be highest.
Gauthier expects the biggest problem to be in storm water runoff following rainfall events. The runoff brings in very fine particles of copper that spike the copper concentrations. Hawaiian
authorities have decided that test measurements must be made following heavy rains since that will be the time that copper concentrations will appear high.
According to Gauthier, the Navy has proven the main body of water for Pearl Harbor is OK, but local regulators are insisting that measurements be taken specifically at the end of storm water
pipes. Despite scientific evidence showing that copper toxicity is at safe levels throughout the harbor, the regulators are set to force the Navy to spend millions of dollars to reduce copper
concentrations at end-of-pipe. Gauthier says that this has developed into an impasse with Hawaiian regulators. In discussions
with regulators where the Navy has tried to point out that the Pearl Harbor is safe, the local authorities have been extremely stubborn to any scientific evidence. "They don't understand it
and they don't want to hear it," says Gauthier. Geoff Swain, Florida Institute of Technology -
A Non-Toxic Approach to Biofouling Control
Email: swain@fit.edu
Boats working in the warm waters of the Gulf Stream are highly likely to become encrusted with
algae and biofouling. Swain has four research vessels coated with a silicone non-toxic fouling-release surface that he has operating in and around Florida waters. After operating for
close to five years, there has been no permanent growth and no hull cleaning has been required. Swain attributes this entirely to the silicone hull coating.
Fouling release is not the same as a non-stick surface. Swain says that the silicone based hull surface has very low adhesion, so slime and hard fouling organisms adhere, but are knocked off
with very little force. Swain admits however that surface toughness will be one of the problems facing owners of large
commercial type vessels. Scientists have been working on identifying something in the coating to make it more durable without increasing adhesion.
The answer seems to be the addition oil to improve fouling release. Researchers are looking for a proper combination of oil and durability that will make silicon coatings applicable to a wider
audience of ships. For now, Swain believes that for high-speed constant service vessels, silicon has excellent potential. Gerold S. Bohlander, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division – Development and
Demonstration of an Automated Paint Application, Containment and Treatment System
Email: BohlanderGS@nswccd.navy.mil
Bohlander described a paint application system that enables shipyards to coat ship hulls in an exceedingly safe and environmentally sound manner. The device looks like a cherry picker
truck with a robotic arm. At the end of the robotic arm is a vacuum sucker containment mechanism called a shroud.Going for about $800,000 US, Bohlander's system has a vertical reach of 54 feet, which can
paint about 80% of the hull on most large navy vessels. Results showed that 95% of the paint got onto the hull and the shroud captured almost all of the remaining 5%. In addition to
reducing noxious hazards for the workers, the machine improved paint coating thickness and uniformity. As an additional benefit the system can be used in cases of 25-knot winds. Human
spray guns must be stopped at 5-knot wind conditions due to excess over spray. John P. Odwazny, UltraStrip Systems, Inc. –
Antifouling and Hazardous Coating Removal: the M3500 Series Magnetic Air Gap Waterjetting Robotic Platform and System
Email: jodwazny@ultrastrip.com
If anyone wanted a view of what the future will hold in shipyards, they should take a peak at Odwazny's presentation on the UltraStrip coating removal system. This system takes the
science of hydroblasting a ship's hull to remove paint and debris to an entirely new level.In a similar manner to Bohlander's painting system (see above), Odwazny explained that the
UltraStrip system works via robotics. This one, however, uses extremely powerful magnets to hold a 450 lb mobile hydroblasting unit near but not touching the ship's hull. Resembling a
grown-up version of a kid's radio-controlled car, the huge unit skims along a vessel's hull blasting a concentrated jet of water into the ship's side.
According to Odwazny, the UltraStrip system is environmentally secure as well since the stripper also re-captures the water and debris for treatment. The entire system can skim along
a ship's hull covering about 750 sq. ft/hr. Not only does it work faster than a conventional water blasting system, the system only uses 3 workers to operate. Contrast this with a typical
14-man team normally required for hydroblasting and shipyards will see some real benefits in UltraStrip. DAY THREE
Gary C. Schafran, Professor Old Dominion University – Full Scale TBT Treatment and
Washwater Characterization: Challenges and Advances Made Treating Shipyard Waters, 1999-2003
Email: gschafra@odu.edu
With the coming ban on organotin biocide paints on ships, experts agree that in the next few years international shipyards will be faced with a huge influx of TBT waste product. Ship owners
electing to remove TBT paint from their hulls will have all organotin-based paint blasted off their ships. Experts are worried about the likelihood of a sudden surge in TBT-laden wastewater
leading from drydocks in the coming years. Schafran and his scientists at Old Dominion University are preparing Virginia shipyards for TBT
surges through their research on treating TBT laden waters. In 1998, the State of Virginia passed the strictest international limitations on TBT for effluent waters – no higher than 50 parts per
trillion. At the time, no treatment system existed that could remove TBT down to 50 ppt. Schafran set to work designing and implementing a full-scale treatment plant that could be
moved from shipyard to shipyard to treat wastewater from drydocks that are removing TBT-based paints from ship hulls.
The treatment plant is now operational and can treat a flow rate of 50 gals per minute. It is a barge based treatment system and can remove 99% of the TBT from the heaviest laden effluent.
Unfortunately, Schafran points out that the mobile plant is still incapable of meeting the 50 ppt limit level. According to Schafran, a consortium of ship owners went to the Virginia government (DEP) to
argue that the TBT limits were too strict. Thanks in great part to Schafran's studies, the Virginia DEP granted a change in the law. The limit was relaxed to a daily maximum of 720
nanograms/liter and a yearly total discharge maximum of 5 gms TBT/yr. Schafran noted that changing the TBT limits in Virginia's law made everyone happy, including
environmentalists. Scientists, industry and environmentalists were all present at the hearing, and all parties agreed on the new relaxed TBT limits. It is believed that Virginia's TBT
restrictions continue to protect the environment, but now they are technically achievable in a modern wastewater treatment facility. Gary C. Schafran, Professor Old Dominion University –
Removal of TBT Using Granular Activated Carbon; AND Removal of TBT in Shipyard Waters Using Advanced Oxidation Processes H. Stichnothe, Technical University of Hamburg, Dept. Environmental Science & Technology –
TBT Decomposition in Dredged Material in a Pilot Scale; AND Green North Sea Docks: Development of the Best Environmental Practice for Decontaminating
TBT Containing Waters in the North Sea Region Based on Life-Cycle Assessment.
Email: stichnothe@tuhh.de
A compendium of speakers discussed what the believe will eventually become a critical issue during the tributyltin (TBT) removal rush. What will be the most effective way to treat TBT from wastewaters?
Schafran noted that Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) is a good TBT absorber and lower pH favors greater adsorption. He also felt ozone combined with ultraviolet treatment may
eventually be an effective alternative for TBT treatment. Germany is doing some research into treating dredge soils that contain TBT. Stichnothe will be
attempting to treat or landfill 1.5 million cubic meters of dredge soils/yr, some of which will be treated via electrolysis. He expects the costs to exceed 60 Euros/sq. meter for sediments
requiring longer treatment. Stichnothe also outlined a plan to design best management practices for decontaminating TBT sediments. An Environmentalist with Green North Sea Docks, his group is trying to come up
with a common assessment strategy for TBT treatment in European shipyards. Their methodology is to take the decision making process and break it down into such extreme detail
as to eliminate any vestige of common sense. Stichnothe's concept is to design a "decision supporting tool" to achieve consistent source control." |
|
