Washington State bans copper bottom paint

[RichH]

http://www.washingtonvotes.org/2011-SB-5436

Of course this is only on recreational boats ....

So WHAT, pray tell, will they use in Washington State if copper is prohibited? or will most boaters simply cross the border and keep their boats 'elsewhere'?

 

[Ed Schenck]

They have nine years to figure it out if I read it correctly. States that recreational boats "can not be sold", not that they cannot be painted. So don't put copper on your bottom if you expect to sell your boat.

 

[Seattle Scott]

The weird thing is apparently the law was not controversial. It was supported by the Northwest Marine Trade Organization and the legislative sponser was a state Senator from San Juan County and it passed both state houses by a 90% majority. What I gather is that it was to prevent an evironmental group from suing the state Ecology Dept for not enforcing the Clean Water Act. I never saw it reported - this is the first I heard about it.

 

[Steve Dion]

So currently there is really nothing to take the place of copper paint that is affordable. I would guess that there will be a black market for some products for a while.

I would understand them doing something like this if there were alternatives in place.

Is anyone out there having success with non-copper bottom paints?

 

[FastOlson]

The weird thing is apparently the law was not controversial. It was supported by the Northwest Marine Trade Organization and the legislative sponser was a state Senator from San Juan County and it passed both state houses by a 90% majority. What I gather is that it was to prevent an evironmental group from suing the state Ecology Dept for not enforcing the Clean Water Act. I never saw it reported - this is the first I heard about it.

http://nwyachting.com/
Check page 40 of the current (May) issue on line for an article on this change.

L

 

[FourPoints]

Anyone wanting to start a bottom cleaning business in washington state in about 5 years let me know, I'll invest.

 

[JK_Boston_Catalina310]

I really wish people would do some research before panicking

So WHAT, pray tell, will they use in Washington State if copper is prohibited? or will most boaters simply cross the border and keep their boats 'elsewhere'?

All of the major paint manufactures make copper-free anti-fouling paints. Pettit for instance has the Ultima Eco line. It goes for around $200 a gallon. I suspect you will see this cost go down over the next couple of years as demand for the product increase. Right now only people understand the real impact of copper on the marine environment buy these products in the US. But they are common in other countries.

The issue is that copper is extremely toxic to benthic organism at extremely low concentrations (fractions of one part per trillion). It does not breakdown naturally and can remain in the area for a long time.

While Washington is the first state to adopt this policy, I am sure they won't be the last.

 

[estopa]

Anyone wanting to start a bottom cleaning business in washington state in about 5 years let me know, I'll invest.

Yeah they should do it in CT. We'd make a killing hiring all the illegals to do the dirty work. Good cash business.

 

[dscribner]

Whatt??????? They beat MAINE to it??????? Hardly seems fair.

 

[tommays]

Just so you don't feel picked on there hard at work banning it in brake pads

 

[Steve Dion]

All of the major paint manufactures make copper-free anti-fouling paints. Pettit for instance has the Ultima Eco line. It goes for around $200 a gallon. I suspect you will see this cost go down over the next couple of years as demand for the product increase. Right now only people understand the real impact of copper on the marine environment buy these products in the US. But they are common in other countries.

While Washington is the first state to adopt this policy, I am sure they won't be the last.

Just because a company is making this stuff does NOT mean that it works. It is a matter of thousands of boats using it in the "real" world to determine how effective it may or may not be.

Then there are the issues of using these new paints over the old. Will the bottoms need to be stripped? What happens if these new paints prove to be ineffective and the new paints are again uncompatible......

 

[fstbttms]

Anyone wanting to start a bottom cleaning business in washington state in about 5 years let me know, I'll invest.

You talk like there isn't already a decades-old hull cleaning industry in Washington.

 

[tommays]

Fast have you seen the two pettit copper free paints in action ?

 

[fstbttms]

While Washington is the first state to adopt this policy, I am sure they won't be the last.

California is working on a similar bill (in fact I testified before the State Senate in support of it earlier this week).
SB 623:

http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/SB_623/20112012/

 

[fstbttms]

Just so you don't feel picked on there hard at work banning it in brake pads

Already banned in California.

 

[fstbttms]

Fast have you seen the two petit copper paints in action ?

I clean one of two Petit Eco (zinc plus Econea) test boats in Northern California. Have been since last summer. So far, it's "OK". Nothing to write home about. Interesting that it is photoreactive, meaning the more sunlight it gets, the better it works. The deeper you go, the dirtier the bottom gets, which is directly opposite of how copper paints perform.

 

[fstbttms]

The weird thing is apparently the law was not controversial. It was supported by the Northwest Marine Trade Organization and the legislative sponser was a state Senator from San Juan County and it passed both state houses by a 90% majority.

Not so weird. Boatyards up there being sued out of existence by environmental groups for their part in the copper issue. I'm sure that's why the NMTO backed the bill.

 

[Rick D]

Blinders

JK's post may be an example of regionalism on this issue IMHO. On the left coast, boats typically use high-copper hard bottom paint, commonly use divers and typically get four years from the applications. Non-copper applications more often require stripping and professional coating and require recoating in two years and weekly to twice weekly bottom cleaning. OK, let's consider the cost. I pay $50 monthly for bottom cleaning. Kick that up to $200. The quote I got to sand the bottom, which requires tenting, was $2K. The haul and application is about $1500. The materials cost is about the same, slightly more for copper-free. My material cost last haul was $1K including the environmental cost, haz mat suits, and application materials. So, over 4 years, that yields an increase of $6100. That's no small change, and I resent commercial vessel exemption and I have a lot of distrust on the science after suffering through plenty of boating regulation that has not changed a thing. I have personally observed water and soil 'sampling' by universities who were no doubt part of these studies which was performed at the absolute worst locations possible. And that not once, but over years. Further, almost all the SoCal locations are reclaimed from heavy industrial usage or over a century of commercial shipping. So, pardon me if I don't buy it on the surface.

 

[fstbttms]

On the left coast, boats typically... get four years from the applications.

Sooooo not true.

 

[RichH]

All of the major paint manufactures make copper-free anti-fouling paints. Pettit for instance has the Ultima Eco line. It goes for around $200 a gallon. I suspect you will see this cost go down over the next couple of years as demand for the product increase. Right now only people understand the real impact of copper on the marine environment buy these products in the US. But they are common in other countries.

The issue is that copper is extremely toxic to benthic organism at extremely low concentrations (fractions of one part per trillion). It does not breakdown naturally and can remain in the area for a long time.

While Washington is the first state to adopt this policy, I am sure they won't be the last.

When one talks about 'fractions of one part per trillion' ... that sort of begs on the 'impossible to detect range' and most certainly well beyond the limits of 'naturally occurring dissolved copper' in the natural environment or 'background'. To put this in perspective, one part per trillion would be equivalent in area of one soda/pop bottle cap placed on the surface of the MOON. Im sure that in any metropolitan area the 'morning flush' contains magnitudes more (PPB range) of 'copper' just from people peeing out their vitamin intake and using water that was contained in copper PIPES. I'd like to SEE or for you to present validatable data on the accuracy of the calibration of the instrumentation, the certification of the 'technician' who took this 'impossible' data AND the data/documentation which backs up this apparently very very preposterous claim. Otherwise such baseless and unsupportable claims belong in the 'histrionics' category.
The simple fact of 'background' values is that Copper is ubiquitous in the environment with 50 ppm (50000000 parts per TRILLION) in the Earth’s crust and 0.25 ppb (250 parts per trillion as a 'dissociated ionic' species to the 'tune' of 34 billion metric TONNES of dissolved Copper) in Ocean water to over 100 ppm (100000000 parts per TRILLION) in sediments. Copper occurs both naturally and anthropogenically, the anthropogenic form is an essential micronutrient (at the 'background' level) for almost ALL life forms.

The second part of your 'offering' is as equally preposterous as copper is a fundamental ELEMENT (ATOMS !!!!) ... but rapidly combines under the simple chemical process of OXIDATION.

I would make the counter claim to refute your 'entire testimony' as that what you offer is entirely baseless, a gross and wilful distortion and cannot be supported at the most elemental 'chemistry' basis and therefore is WHOLLY PREPOSTEROUS.

Another 'example' of PSEUDO-SCIENCE at its very best.

ref.: http://www.chemet.com/file.asp?F=Co...per+and+the+Ocean+Environment1.PDF&C=articles