Washington State bans copper bottom paint

petersea · May 7, 2011

"From the most widely accepted study, performed by the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP):

Marinas are areas of special water quality concern because of the potential for pollutant accumulation. There are several potential contaminant sources to enclosed harbors that can decrease water quality, including vessel antifouling coatings.

Perhaps the largest contaminant source to marinas is vessel antifouling paints.

This study found widespread copper contamination in the water column of San Diego area marinas. Approximately 86% of the surface water in the marinas exceeded the state water quality threshold for copper."

"potential" (twice) "perhaps" and San Diego. This is a basis for banning copper bottom paint ?

Correct me if I wrong but I believe that the U S Navy's largest west coast location is San Diego. No direct correlation to recreational boats and no definitive proof ! !
I guess it is all in how you want to interpret the information. or in the political world they call it "spin". I can't help but also mention that using any state funded organization (especially CALIFORNIA) I for one and I believe many other are automatic suspect. The report says there are several potential sources...can't help but wonder what they are doing about the other sources. If this paint is so bad and there are "acceptable" alternatives why are the commercial boats exempt ? Guess maybe I will make my boat a "commercial charter" boat and be exempt from the rules for all you recreational boaters ! !

fstbttms · May 7, 2011

Well, everybody can flail themselves and gnash their teeth all they like, but the handwriting is on the wall. Washington banned copper in brake pads and then followed suit with copper in anti fouling paint. California has now also banned copper in brake pads and is looking to do the same with anti fouling paint. There are relatively effective alternatives to copper paints now and more (and better ones) sure to come to the marketplace once a ban actually goes into effect. I think people are getting their panties into a bunch over nothing.

Ray Bowles · May 7, 2011

If I remember correctly, copper paint was a replacement for a previously used metal.
All change threatens someone, somehow. It then quietly passes so we can be threatened anew.
Global warming? Hell no! It's simply random cycles Artic ice melting that causes more rain, that forces rivers over our thoughtfully placed dikes, that God forgot to put there is the first place.
I sure hope our river fills quickly so I can be done with my foolishment.
Ray
Lake Roosevelt behind Grand Coolee Dam is down 72 feet for winter run-off. That's a lot of water.

Stu Jackson · May 7, 2011

fstbttms said:
Stu, it doesn't matter how many boats are being cleaned or how frequently that cleaning happens. Copper leaches out of anti fouling paint at a proscribed rate 24/7/365 until that copper is all gone. So every boat that has anti fouling paint (essentially 100% of the boats living in the water) is pumping copper into the marina non-stop. Hull cleaning contributes a very small spike in copper levels during the hull cleaning event, but there is X-amount of copper on a boat's bottom and all of that copper is going to get into the water, whether or not the bottom is cleaned.

What about that huge % of boats that go nowhere and never get hauled? If the on-the-boat life of copper paint is less than three years, my dockmate next-door-neighbor hasn't been down to his boat in over six years and it certainly hasn't been hauled out in ten years. That's why I'm a little suspicious of these kind of general claims about the source, although I can't possibly argue with the fact that there's more copper under marinas than elsewhere.

fstbttms said:
If you don't want hull cleaners advocating for a ban on copper, why don't you tell the boatyards and marinas to lay off hull cleaners? Hey, I'm just a bottom scraper, I have no power and even less money. I, and my colleagues, have been fighting this battle for ten years, and we're losing. For instance, the California Clean Marina Program has adopted (at the behest of some of these powerful waterfront stakeholders) hull cleaning Best Management Practices that, if enforced, would mean that I would be essentially unable to effectively clean your hull unless you had it cleaned every 2 to 4 weeks. Does that sound appetizing to you? Do you want to have to haul your boat every time you simply want to clean the bottom? Because that's what these guys want you to have to do. Now a bill comes up that not only helps eliminate the copper that is the cause of all this, but helps me be able to continue to properly maintain my customer's boats at a reasonable cost as well? Yeah, I'm going to support it.

No, I don't wanna have to do that. It'd be cheaper to buy "these powerful waterfront stakeholders" their own boats to teach 'em a lesson!

Unless I missed it before, who are "these powerful waterfront stakeholders?" Gov't "do-goders", local eco-nazis, grandmas in roller skates?

I sure hope you're right about the marketplace coming up with a solution about new paints AFTER they pass this law, 'cuz they sure seem to NOT be in a hurry to do it now. If their main product is banned, perhaps they will have no alternative.

Somehow, I feel we, as boaters, are gonna get shafted again. The CA law starts to go into effect for new boats in 2015, NOT NINE years later.

Still going after us small fry instead of the bigger contributors, though.

KD3PC · May 8, 2011

"Pal, I got way more skin in this game than you do, despite your bitching that you might not be able to find your favorite anti fouling paint on the shelve at West Marine in ten years. And I have done my homework. You are simply quoting from the paint and chemical manufacturer's web site. What the hell did you think they were going to say, that the product they are selling is bad? Give me a break.

From the most widely accepted study, performed by the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP):"

Fast..you are putting words in my mouth with the above. This is my first weigh in on this and I have made no mention of Paint/west/etc..

You neglected the most important part of my post...IF this copper thing is really bad...then it should apply to EVERY boat bottom in the water....it doesn't - only to recreational boats under 65 feet...

AND just because TWO states have made a political decision based on a ton of Maybe's and could'ves...does not make it correct/intelligent/fair/etc/etc and one that the rest of the nation (and it's insane EPA) should follow.

If your marinas are fearful of eco-nut's law suits then so be it. But don't expect the same thing to happen over here.

Same thing happened years back with TBT and other "toxic" solutions...the new stuff WAS going to better than the old stuff...except it wasn't and all that was backed up by the best political spin meisters in the world. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

I posted those two, so that at least others can see there are two sides to the question, and your blanket statements that I was "wrong" fails to see that there ARE two sides to this...and that YOU may be the one who is wrong as you seem to think "your" organizations are infallible.

Open your eyes, it is politics and eco-nut threats...not science driving these regulations in WA and in CA...

jibes138 · May 8, 2011

I was washing the copper bottoms of the pans I cook with after making some soup. I used a scouring pad to remove all the grime and I wasn't wearing gloves. Should I report the contaminated wastewater to the EPA and should I call an ambulance to get me to the emergency room quick?
I guess to make sense out of this we would need to see what the copper content is in normal wastewater discharges from municipal waste treatment plants, especially when they flood. Then compare that to the concentrations in marinas from the bottom paint. I have yet to hear any scientific studies that justify any action of any kind. Seems like the flushing capacity of the marina must also be considered. In areas of high tidal changes an awful lot of water is coming and going in other marinas maybe not so much.

kenn · May 8, 2011

If this paint is so bad and there are "acceptable" alternatives why are the commercial boats exempt ?

Two answers:
1 (the paranoid answer) Commercial enterprise can lobby their way through just about anything. Deepwater Horizon, anyone? Subprime mortgage meltdown?
2 (a possibly rational answer) For a phased-in reduction, it only makes sense to start with discretionary use, and recreational boating is certainly discretionary, in comparison to commercial fleets.

Another possible reason for starting with recreational use is that something hazardous is much more likely to be abused in the hands of amateurs. I know most of you are responsible, but I still hear and see doofuses blithely taking a power-sander to their anti-fouling - no personal protection, no collection precautions.

Maybe if the recreational boating industry and boating organizations produced a code of standards for copper antifouling use, provided a rational counterargument, and took collective responsibility for monitoring compliance and copper levels in/around marinas, there might be some give to the regulations.

You can't just discount the science.That's the ostrich argument. The other arguments, based around awareness, measurements and management stand a better chance.

jibes138 said:
... the cost of compliance will be so severe, basically requiring a zero discharge at every manufacturing site.

um, as a general principle, why is that unreasonable? We have significant pollution problems precisely because for too long businesses didn't have to cover the whole life-cycle cost of their products or processes, leaving others (usually taxpayers) to clean up the mess.

Not trying to derail, just looking for a compromise.

fstbttms · May 8, 2011

Stu Jackson said:
Unless I missed it before, who are "these powerful waterfront stakeholders?" Gov't "do-goders", local eco-nazis, grandmas in roller skates?

They are San Diego marina operators and boatyards for the most part. Trying to steer the industry statewide in a direction that benefits themselves and no one else.

Stu Jackson said:
I sure hope you're right about the marketplace coming up with a solution about new paints AFTER they pass this law, 'cuz they sure seem to NOT be in a hurry to do it now. If their main product is banned, perhaps they will have no alternative.

All the major paint manufacturers have non-copper products developed already, knowing that eventually this day would come. We haven't seen most of them yet because (as evidenced by this thread) consumers will not buy them until forced to by law.

fstbttms · May 8, 2011

kd3pc said:
If your marinas are fearful of eco-nut's law suits then so be it. But don't expect the same thing to happen over here.

They are not fearful of "eco-nuts". They are fearful the state is going to require them to remediate copper-contaminated water and sediments at the potential cost of tens of millions per marina.

fstbttms · May 8, 2011

jibes138 said:
Seems like the flushing capacity of the marina must also be considered. In areas of high tidal changes an awful lot of water is coming and going in other marinas maybe not so much.

This is very true. Not all marinas show the same degree of copper-loading. But (as the study I quoted shows) in San Diego, for instance, 86% of the surface water in the marinas there exceeds state water quality levels for copper. This after years of voluntary measures to bring that number down. The federal government requires that California bring all of its impaired bodies of water (and there are hundreds) into compliance. This bill will be the most recent and if passed, quite frankly, the most effective attempt yet to do that.

jibes138 · May 8, 2011

Why is it unreasonable?

"um, as a general principle, why is that unreasonable? We have significant pollution problems precisely because for too long businesses didn't have to cover the whole life-cycle cost of their products or processes, leaving others (usually taxpayers) to clean up the mess.

Not trying to derail, just looking for a compromise. "

Well lets start with, zero discharge will likely mean taking the effluent and putting it in plastic totes and calling a waste company to come and pick it up. What do you think the waste company will do with it?
What do you think the cost to municipalities will be for the zero discharge requirement for their wastewater plants? Where do you think the tax dollars will come from to pay for this when there are no jobs for people? I find most large companies to be extremely responsible in regards to the environment with extensive improvement programs and compliance audits. Wastewater sampling is conducted regularly by both the town and the plant I work in to make sure no permit limits are exceeded.
A town in the area was informed that to meet the most recent proposal for water by DENR they would have to restrict residential and industrial growth to zero.
No one wants pollution but almost everything we do as people causes some in one way or another. Perhaps next they will tell us not to breathe because we release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We need reasonable and responsible regulation backed up by good science.
The real problem is demand for products that involve manufacturing processes that pollute. Like building a sailboat with a lead keel (how much of that leaches into the water?) and all sorts of chemicals related to cleaning and resins. Then the operation of the boat pollutes even more. Yet you insist on sailing. Why not do your part for the environment and give up the activity if you feel this strongly about something with a possible lesser effect?

kenn · May 8, 2011

Re: Why is it unreasonable?

jibes138 said:
I find most large companies to be extremely responsible in regards to the environment with extensive improvement programs and compliance audits. Wastewater sampling is conducted regularly by both the town and the plant I work in to make sure no permit limits are exceeded.
...
No one wants pollution but almost everything we do as people causes some in one way or another.

You are correct... and how did we get here? By measurement, understanding, regulation and enforcement.

I do agree that zero pollution is impossible.

We need reasonable and responsible regulation backed up by good science.

I agree completely. But we have to recognise that the process is iterative, and that standards will be reexamined as our technical ability to recognise and mediate improves.

Steve Dion · May 8, 2011

fstbttms said:
They are not fearful of "eco-nuts". They are fearful the state is going to require them to remediate copper-contaminated water and sediments at the potential cost of tens of millions per marina.

When "they" start all of this remediation where are they going to put all of the tailings so they don't pollute the ground waters?

This process wll be like catch 22.

I suppose they can move it to the Nevada test site and fill in that big hole in the Nevada desert. Then in 100 years some one will think that they discovered a new copper mine.

fstbttms · May 8, 2011

Steve Dion said:
When "they" start all of this remediation where are they going to put all of the tailings so they don't pollute the ground waters?

This process wll be like catch 22.

Let's keep in mind that we are discussing two separate, but related, issues. The first is SB 623, which would ban copper in anti fouling paints in California. The second is the effort by certain waterfront stakeholders to limit (or eliminate) the effectiveness of in-water hull cleaning in California, regardless of what happens on the legislative front.

BTW- Last month I was told by a well-placed source that these stakeholders will attempt to amend SB 623 with the same restrictive in-water hull cleaning BMP language that they managed to get into the California Clean Marina Program. I saw no evidence of this during my time in the Capitol Building last week, but it certainly bears watching. If true, what they want to do is essentially hamstring by law, your diver's ability to clean your boat bottom (regardless of what anti fouling product is on it), knowing that you will be unlikely to pay for a service that is no longer effective or to increase the service frequency to a point that it becomes prohibitively expensive.

fstbttms · May 8, 2011

kenn said:
Maybe if the recreational boating industry and boating organizations produced a code of standards for copper antifouling use, provided a rational counterargument, and took collective responsibility for monitoring compliance and copper levels in/around marinas, there might be some give to the regulations.

Again, all voluntary measures such as you suggest (and you are not the first to suggest them) have failed. There is no money or political will to enforce such measures.

tommays · May 8, 2011

A four-year, $6 million effort to clean up the Jakobson Shipyard in Oyster Bay, L.I., proved to be a task far more expensive than expected. But the project, the first underwater cleanup in New York State, has been successful enough to serve as a model for the more than 100 marine sites on the state's hazardous-waste site list"

Then it was scraped clear of more than 11,700 tons of murky sediment, a brew common to many shipyards. Finally, the trash was tossed out -- 435 truckloads of contaminated soil that were carried to a special landfill in Ohio.

"It was an educational process and this will definitely be a model," said Karen Chytalo, of the State Department of Environmental Conservation, the agency that monitored the cleanup.

My friends dock building company did this job under the eye of the everybody though it was gonna never get done

For example each crane bucket of soil had to be bagged by a diver before it was lifted out of the water which was kind of slow and why it took 4 years

Rick D · May 8, 2011

Fastbottoms, if I recall from reading last year the non-copper paint study preliminary findings, the products being tested all, or nearly all, require regular hull cleaning. So, how do we square that with the stakeholder lobby to effectively eliminate cleaning? Or, does the average legislative staffer's eyes simply glaze over well before that point?

fstbttms · May 8, 2011

Rick D said:
Fastbottoms, if I recall from reading last year the non-copper paint study preliminary findings, the products being tested all, or nearly all, require regular hull cleaning. So, how do we square that with the stakeholder lobby to effectively eliminate cleaning? Or, does the average legislative staffer's eyes simply glaze over well before that point?

First off, there are no anti fouling coatings legal for use in California (now or in the foreseeable future) that do not require regular cleaning and the people responsible for SB 623 understand this, or at least understand that hull cleaning is a normal part of boat maintenance. However, the stakeholders that would implement statewide BMPs that are impractical and unwieldy actually claim that that hull cleaning is an unneccessary service that I, and my compatriots, are foisting upon an apparently ignorant boating public and I have been told words to this effect to my face by their ringleader, who is the CEO of a large chain of marinas in California. To their credit, the beaurocrats and politicians in Sacramento seem to know better, or at least maybe haven't had this point of view pitched to them yet. The California Professional Divers Association is now in the loop with (SB 623 author) Senator Kehoe's office and will certainly be vigilant about making sure any amendments that would curtail or eliminate hull cleaning are effectively countered.

jibes138 · May 9, 2011

I want to also alert the group to the hazards of leaves and pine needles. When it rains we have to take stormwater samples and are limited by the amount of suspended solids in the sample. The primary culprits are leaves and pine needles requiring us to do level 1 (or something) remediation to make sure no leaves or pine needles get in our storm water. Meanwhile cars all over the country are leaking oil all over our roads and parking lots and running into the storm ditches.
Thought this might impress the point of complete insanity in our regulations.