Laserfiche WebLink
Si?"'- <br />m> ■ <br />- ' ■ . <br />m"' <br />m <br />te“-fe'- <br />»Wm>r <br />Technical Information - Styrofoam Flotation August 4, 1992 <br />Page 3 <br />H <br />Isv <br />Nuschell notes that although the specification provides <br />of the foam so it is contained and <br />nuouiiexx nwv.es unau aj.viiviu^ii apcv.xj.xv.cii.xwii pj.wvxvica <br />for encasing of the foam so it is contained and <br />disintegration is limited, this system doesn't require <br />the encasement to be watertight. He believes that <br />towards eventually requiring <br />I <br />waiWdB^111 w JA ^ u*w <br />current thought is moving ^ <br />watertightness, because of: <br />Water absorption limiting the life of the floats.1, <br />2, <br />3, <br />Exposure to animal penetration. <br />Potential fuel degradation by contact. <br />What does this all mean? I would draw the following <br />conclusions from the information sent to us: <br />1, The technology for enclosed flotation units <br />certainly exists, and such units potentially have <br />a much longer service life than the relatively <br />inexpensive unprotected styrofoam (which may <br />justify the higher cost), <br />2, The Corps of Engineers is already starting to ban <br />unprotected styrofoam, with a 5-year grace period. <br />We are not alone. <br />Both experts confirm that gasoline will rapidly <br />degrade sytrofoam on contact and therefore, <br />encasement and protection against gasoline contact <br />should be provided <br />We might want to consider incorporating Hunt's <br />"Minimum Flotation Specification for States with <br />Freeze/Thaw Temperature Cycles" as part of our <br />styrofoam ordinance. <br />The information from these two experts appears <br />confirm and support the City's position that n <br />encased styrofoeun should <br />non- <br />.1 <br />A <br />,.A. . a. *1.1