State Sen. Kehoe Drops Anti Fouling Paint Bill

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by hummingway

I wouldn't presume that because some sea life tolerates the copper that it means it's OK in the environment.

The entire pro-copper argument presented here is based on presumptions. Presumption that copper is not a problem in the marine environment, presumption that boaters have some kind of inalienable right to use copper-based paints and presumption anybody advocating for non-copper alternatives is looking to line their pockets. All of which is untrue. But that doesn't stop them from making the argument.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Marksman

Here is a study with references.....http://www.chemet.com/file.asp?F=Cop...PDF&C=articles

Lots of good information, puts some things into perspective.

Understanding, of course, that American Chemet is the corporation that supplies the paint manufacturers with copper. They have an obvious vested interest in making sure copper doesn't go away and were deeply involved making sure SB 623 never did what it was intended to do. If you think they're going to confirm that copper from anti fouling paint is bad, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

[sailorchic34]

So I went looking for EPA data and found the California integrated 2010 report with a really cool interactive map for the various polutants.

Here's the link: State Water Resources Control Board

Click on the map tab and then zoom and select your poison of choice. way cool

So clicked on copper and the interactive map showed that while there were areas in California with high copper, which did not meet the epa requirement, LA, and many mining areas mainly.

Oddly enough the whole SF Bay area was shown to be in compliance with copper. Oh there is a whole lot of other polutants where the SF bay did exceed, but copper was not one of then.

Hum......

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

OOddly enough the whole SF Bay area was shown to be in compliance with copper. Oh there is a whole lot of other polutants where the SF bay did exceed, but copper was not one of then.

Hum......

San Francisco Bay has a discharge waiver for copper due to historical sources of this pollutant. Without the waiver, certain areas of Bay could still be issued a TMDL for copper, much like Shelter Island Yacht Basin. It doesn't mean there isn't more copper in certain areas than is good for the environment.

That being said, the state is not going to break out individual regions for copper mitigation. If copper in anti fouling paint is going to be further regulated, it will affect the entire state, not specific locales.

[Marksman]

I think some of us are just a little leary of the chicken little syndrom when it comes to some of these things. Remember when butter was bad and replaced by margerine, and now margerin is bad and butter is back. Sucrose was poison and replaced by fructose which is now bad and sucrose is back. Gluten is the latest boogie man and so on. I'm looking at both sides of the argument for truths with valid support. My last post contains a link to a study that quantifies the sources and percentages of copper being introduced into the water as well as addressng the effects on micro and macro enviroments.
I also read a study on copper as a micro nutrient and at what levels it is essential for life, and where it begines to cause problems as ppm escalates, though I didn't come to any conclusions from that one.
In Puget Sound, the battle cry was to protect the salmon runs from influx of copper as it was having a negative effect on spawning. From an observers perspective, we are currently enjoying some record salmon returns despite all the copper bottom paint being used. Every spring we get balls of Salmon fry the size of small houses which enter my marina from the nearby spawning stream, and live happily there until they are large enough to venture outside. I tend to think our salmon are far more effected by the latest fishing rules than the copper introduced by recreational boaters.
Also, the fact that any ban on copper paint only effects medium to smaller recreational boats, and ignores the huge comercial traffic in the area (and large yachts) makes me question the motivations of the law makers and their wisdom.

[sailorchic34]

But the map does actually show the areas where copper exceeds the EPA limit if you drill down thru the data just a little. Most are mining areas in the mountains, btw

No question there are areas in the bay with lots of heavy metal (not just copper) pollution. All the former WWII shipyards for sure.

But even with your estimate of 100,000 pounds of copper per year from boats, the bay area as a whole is in compliance for copper. Least thats what the CA water resource board says...

If you look at other polutants it shows exactly which areas are not in compliance, down to stream level..


Just saying that if copper in bottom paint was a major source, that it should show the bay area and its tributaries as not in compliance.

Me I'm not going to worry about it...

Ok I am done here..

[Marksman]

Oh I fully understand Chemet's vested interest in protecting their product sales. And I would expect if they are being unfairly targeted would and should deffend their possition. I have read plenty of your posts dispelling myths about issues involving bottom cleaning. Truth should be the deciding factor for any argument. But none the less I haven't found any study that contradicts their numbers either, which (of course) don't "paint" copper as such a large problem as some would think.

Cheers

[sailorboy1]

just think of the good deals in buying a boat that are going to be coming once the paint thing gets "resolved" and all those CA boaters have to get rid of their boats because they can not afford to get the bottom done

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

But even with your estimate of 100,000 pounds of copper per year from boats, the bay area as a whole is in compliance for copper. Least thats what the CA water resource board says...

Just saying that if copper in bottom paint was a major source, that it should show the bay area and its tributaries as not in compliance.

Of course the entire Bay Area is not affected. What you fail to understand is that unlike some other pollutants, copper does not travel. It stays where it enters the environment. I guarantee there are marinas in the Bay Area that are acutely, as well as chronically impaired for copper but if you measure it 100 yards outside the marina, levels are normal.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Again, to those arguing that copper is not a problem- that ship has sailed. The federal government has dertermined what it considers to be acceptable levels of copper for California's waterways and hundreds of those waterways exceed it.

And of course we all know the Fed is smarter than anybody and is ALWAYS right...

[sdowney717]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Again, to those arguing that copper is not a problem- that ship has sailed. The federal government has dertermined what it considers to be acceptable levels of copper for California's waterways and hundreds of those waterways exceed it. The state is required by federal law to bring those waterways into compliance. This is not an option. The only matter up for discussion is how compliance will be reached. It's going to happen, no matter how much bitching and moaning you do.

So then CHANGE THE LAW.
We dont have to live with a regulation, they can be repealed.

The amount of government laws and regulations I think has gone way too far on many things.
I know that this can be difficult since the courts can muck up decisions when people vote the other way. But it can be done even overriding the courts.
Just because it is written, does not mean it is a good law, and does not mean it can never be rescinded.

The system of government has been taken over by 'eco zealots' or 'eco nazis'. And most Americans are too busy to notice, or feel disenfranchised and become impotent or just dont care.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by sdowney717

So then CHANGE THE LAW.

Maybe you haven't been reading the thread-

1.- It's not a law. Not now, maybe never.
2.- If it were a law, I wouldn't want it changed.

[SunDevil]

Originally Posted by sdowney717

The system of government has been taken over by 'eco zealots' or 'eco nazis'. And most Americans are too busy to notice, or feel disenfranchised and become impotent or just dont care.

You aren't supposed to talk politics on here I thought??

Anyways, how many members of the Green Party are in the US Congress?

The anti-environmentalists have much more power, money, and lobbyists in the house and senate. Let alone on talk radio and a major TV station.

As for anti-fouling, would something like this work?
Ultrasonic Antifouling the most effective, environmentally friendly product on the market for your boat
(I'm not associated with that company or any other)

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by SunDevil

As for anti-fouling, would something like this work?
Ultrasonic Antifouling the most effective, environmentally friendly product on the market for your boat
(I'm not associated with that company or any other)

Ultrasonic anti fouling doesn't work. If it did, you'd see it on the shelf in every West Marine in the country.

[David M]

When government owned sewage treatment plants clean up their own act first and stop dumping millions of gallons of only partially treated sewage into the rivers and bays during major storm events then maybe consider going after the yachties, which are a drop in the bucket by comparison.

Municipalities also need to clean up their own storm drains and other non point sources. An amazing amount of petroleum products and metals wash off the streets like motor oil, tire scrub, brake dust, you name it. Boat paint is almost nothing by comparison.

"Wealthy" boaters make an easier target than for elected officials to point their fingers back at themselves. I will say it...hypocrites.

I do research with a bio-assay company who puts bivalves down in the Bay for a period of time to see what they bi-accumulate. It is not just copper, it is plenty of other metals and man made organic compounds. If anyone looks at the scientific research, boaters are not the big problem. They are just the easiest target to pick on.

Elected officials just like to make it appear that they are going after the bad guys, but who really are the largest offenders? What's the point of only going after 0.001% of a cancer?..or whatever that percentage might be.