Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="wjschmaltz" data-source="post: 346879" data-attributes="member: 6150">The VOCs would indeed evaporate so to speak.  But non-volatiles such as RRO, DRO, and PAHs in Diesel fuel are also major drivers for human health and ecological risk. The only real solution for non-volatiles found in diesel is natural attenuation by some sort of biodegradation method such as introducing/planting organic matter or fertilizer to break these analytes down; or thermal treatment.  Otherwise they do not break down.  Diesel-contaminated soils are landfarmed frequently and/or used as roadbed and landfill cap material. The keywords above are "that is OK with the DEQ." If not approved prior to moving and placing that dirt, it would be treated as a new spill. Prior to moving that dirt, a fate and transport model that identifies pathways and receptors would be submitted to the DEQ. A number of pathways including surface water distance, groundwater depth, surface and subsurface soil, inhalation of outdoor/indoor air, fugitive dust, and uptake of wild and farmed foods would all be looked at. And then the likelihood of the effects of humans and ecological receptors based on the proposed location would be considered from that standpoint.  Even if no receptors are identified, land use controls would be put in place to prevent future exposure.  So we see a lot of landfarming in villages and the soil is typically hauled out of town where no one hardly ever visits.  Or it's used under roads and runways where it has an asphalt cap and is unable to migrate to groundwater, the wind can't move it, and kids won't be making it into a sandbox. Closer to larger cities or the road system, people typically choose excavation and thermal treatment of soil to remove any potential liability down the road.   At a place like a church or residence, there are a number of known receptors. What happens in 10 years when the townhome neighbor or priest gets cancer and finds out that someone was spreading diesel all over the place?  It may not be the reason for the cancer, but based on the scientific data known at this point, there can be lines drawn and potential for a lawsuit.  I would put ZERO stake in what ND and WY are doing with their state departments responsible for protecting human health and environment. It is politics driven and borderline criminal. We will be seeing some massive lawsuits in the future come out of how these spills are being handled and federal judges will be awarding massive checks of your tax money. Icing on the cake will be these small pipeline and oil companies will be gone and the state taxpayers will be the ones paying for the extensive cleanup. Not trying to sound like a know-it-all a-hole, I just work in that industry and trying to explain best I can. I've seen some people lose their ass on this stuff after being put on the hook for cleanup and have also seen some really ugly lawsuits. This would be a case of someone trying to do something good and unknowingly opens themselves up to a very serious lawsuit.  I care about the environment, but I really hate when I see that happen and don't want it to happen to Zogman.</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA