States begin banning copper-based anti fouling paints

[fstbttms]

From Latitude 38:


Washington Bans Copper Bottom Paint

May 11, 2011 – Olympia, WA

On May 4, Washington governor Chris Gregoire sounded the death knell for copper-based bottom paint in her state by signing into law a ban on the use of the product on recreational boats under 65 feet — the first state to do so. The law prohibits the sale of new boats with copper paint after January 1, 2018, and no paint with more than a half a percent of copper can be used starting in 2020.

California is close on our northern neighbor's heels with Senate Bill 623, which would put into place a similar ban. On May 2, the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality approved the ban and sent it to the Senate Appropriations Committee for further consideration. If made into law, the legislation would ban the sale of new boats with copper paint as of January 1, 2015, and ban the paint outright starting in 2019.

For what it's worth, paint companies have made huge strides in developing alternatives to copper — we've been very satisfied with the Econea-based test paints that have been on our boat's bottom for the last few years — but Boat U.S. has expressed concern that, since the ban applies only to rec boats and not commercial or military vessels, it "may not provide a large enough market to stimulate research and development on alternative coatings."

- latitude



Latitude 38 - 'Lectronic Latitude

 

[Rich Keller]

Forget for the monument that there is no way to determine what kind of paint is on the bottom of a boat. What is the problem with copper based paint?

 

[fstbttms]

It doesn't matter what kind of paint is on boats now (probably over 99% have copper-based paint, BTW) because the bans don't require you to remove it. What the bans specify is that after a certain date, you can't sell or apply copper-based paints. So you can keep what you have now until the cows come home. But if you repaint after the deadline, you'll have to use a non-copper paint.

The problem with copper (at least in California) is that many bodies of water exceed the federal government's standards for copper. Studies have shown that copper-based anti fouling paints (and in-water hull hull cleaning activities) contribute a significant amount of that copper. All voluntary measures to reduce the copper loading have failed. Thus, the proposed ban.

 

[Peter_C]

The only thing that sucks is the largest vessels with the most paint do not have to follow the same rules until 2019. There has to be some kind of alternative, just hopefully not the like of MTBE for gas.

 

[Gilldiver]

The amount of copper from boat paints is insignificant to the amount coming from municipal water treatment plants that add copper sulfate for algae control in the water lines. Where I am in New England the amount of copper added by the water company per the Health Department makes the potable water entering my plant above the maximum discharge limit of the water permit. When this is pointed out the the State regulators they say that copper in water from a privately owned Industrial Water Treatment Plant" is bad but water from a nice public owned sewer treatment plant is "Good."

In other words, this is another do gooder law that will drive up the costs to the public while doing absolutely nothing to improve the over all environment.

 

[fstbttms]

In other words, this is another do gooder law that will drive up the costs to the public while doing absolutely nothing to improve the over all environment.

Really? I suppose the law that banned tributyl tin in anti fouling paint was simply "another do gooder law that will drive up the costs to the public while doing absolutely nothing to improve the over all environment"?

 

[fstbttms]

The only thing that sucks is the largest vessels with the most paint do not have to follow the same rules until 2019.

I don't know what law or bill you're looking at. Both Washington's law and California's bill exempt vessels over 65' in length.

 

[Scott L]

I don't know what law or bill you're looking at. Both Washington's law and California's bill exempt vessels over 65' in length.

Why not ban usage on these vessel's if the situation is so dire?

 

[fstbttms]

Why not ban usage on these vessel's if the situation is so dire?

Because people with vessels over 65' in length have a lot of money.

 

[Scott L]

Because people with vessels over 65' in length have a lot of money.

Democrats for sale over eviromental issues? Tisk, tisk....