Washington State Copper Paint Law

[minaret]

BTW, our yard has had a catchment and filtration system since before I started working there almost 20 years ago. It's not that difficult to operate, and I can't believe that yards on the east coast have been operating without them for all these years. Anyone who's ever pressure washed a freshly hauled boat knows how much paint comes off in the runoff, I would walk out of any yard just pouring that into the sea. These jokers should have built a decent system when they built their yards, and to whine now about having to install one is just lame. People who only care about the almighty dollar suck...

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by minaret

BTW, our yard has had a catchment and filtration system since before I started working there almost 20 years ago. It's not that difficult to operate, and I can't believe that yards on the east coast have been operating without them for all these years. Anyone who's ever pressure washed a freshly hauled boat knows how much paint comes off in the runoff, I would walk out of any yard just pouring that into the sea. These jokers should have built a decent system when they built their yards, and to whine now about having to install one is just lame. People who only care about the almighty dollar suck...

I did a haulout in South Florida in 2003 and it had a catchment system. I think they mean copper from boats that are just in the water. The pressure washing thing points to how it was done in forgotten times that were very bad, but not for the measurements done now.

cheers,
Nick.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Please leave me out of your paranoid right-wing rants.

And please spare us your left wing rants.

[delmarrey]

Originally Posted by minaret

Heres the first page on a Cruising World article on this issue. A lot of hard figures that are hard to argue with.

Bottom Paint without Copper | Cruising World

And still no links to science research proving so. Facts! That's what I want to see!
Doing some research here's what I've found........ Who are you supposed to believe?

COPPER TOXICITY SYNDROME

ATSDR - Toxic Substances - Copper

Toxic Copper: The Newly Discoverd Culprit in Alzheimer's & Dementia First is was aluminum, now it's copper which contradict the first links

PI-66/PI103: Pesticide Toxicity Profile: Copper-based Pesticides

Also it would take 23,000 years for the current antifouling copper input to equal the existing copper in the world’s oceans.
http://www.chemet.com/file.asp?F=Cop...PDF&C=articles

Ocean dumping - CopperWiki

Pretty soon you will not be able to even swim in the ocean, or any other water source... Bioaccumulation in marine organisms: effect of contaminants from oil well ... - Jerry M. Neff - Google Books

Copper alloys in aquaculture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But still no real-science studies found.....

[minaret]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

I did a haulout in South Florida in 2003 and it had a catchment system. I think they mean copper from boats that are just in the water. The pressure washing thing points to how it was done in forgotten times that were very bad, but not for the measurements done now.

cheers,
Nick.

Take the time to read the article I was talking about first. Or did you think they were talking about a catchment and filtration system for the whole ocean?


"The alternative—to install expensive wastewater collection systems and haul the water to a treatment plant—became law in Connecticut at the end of 2010 (following Maine and Massachusetts) and is hanging over the head of Maryland boatyards, as efforts to clean up Chesapeake Bay target all industrial sources, including boatyard powerwashing.
The Baltimore County Marine Trades Association considered a copper ban, but it pulled back after deciding that “there isn’t really a proven alternative to copper yet,” said Raymond Porter, a boatyard owner and the association president. He estimated that a water-collecting system would cost his 100-slip boatyard $80,000. Yet, as he watches clean-water enforcement move down the U.S. East Coast, he braces for a new day in antifouling."

[minaret]

Originally Posted by delmarrey

And still no links to science research proving so. Facts! That's what I want to see!
Doing some research here's what I've found........ Who are you supposed to believe?
But still no real-science studies found.....

I'm sure Cruising World just made all those numbers up to support their own agenda! Buy the mag and I'm sure they tell you which studies they got these figures from, in fact they mention some of the studies in the article. How are these not facts? That's hard science there. Actual measurements of copper pollution in the water column that are much higher in harbors with lots of recreational boats, and studies that show high concentrations in molluscs, which are then of course eaten by everything else. Same as mercury or TBT, just not as severe. I don't understand why people think that poison is the only possible solution here, and I applaud the governments efforts to light a fire under the private sectors ass to develop alternatives. They gave plenty of time to do it. And to say it can't be done is silly, we've only been using cuprous oxide on a large scale for forty years. The world has changed drastically in that time. I guarantee you there are many more companies spending large sums to solve this problem since this legislation has passed than before. Even if you think the EPA's minimum allowable dosage of copper is too low, many harbors in the US exceeded the limit many times over when measured, and have for many years. I for one am glad they finally decided to do something about it.

[delmarrey]

This is the only study I could find that relates to our immediate area. And all the credits are on the last pages.

http://www.chemet.com/file.asp?F=Cop...PDF&C=articles

Multiple sediment samples taken both inside and outside the Port Townsend Marina in Washington State were measured for copper and TBT concentrations (15). The copper was found to be 62 ppm in the marina and 29.2 ppm outside the marina while TBT was found to be 46.5 ppb inside the marina and 1.9 ppb outside the marina. Therefore the level of copper inside the marina was approximately twice that of outside the marina, while the level of TBT was 24 times greater inside versusoutsidethemarina. Thestudy concluded that TBT levels were significantly higher inside versus outside the marina relative to copper because the sediments in the entire port have a significant natural copper concentration level of approximately 29 ppm. The study stated that only 1% of the copper in the bay outside the marina was from antifouling.
Copper is an essential element required for normal growth in all plants and animals. As such, it is considered a normal constituent in the ecosystem in both soil and water where its presence is partially due to the metabolic by-products of plants and animals as previously discussed. The amount of copper required for normal metabolism is small, and for this reason the metal is considered a micronutrient. At both high and low concentrations copper can be detrimental to organisms.

[hummingway]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

And please spare us your left wing rants.

Let that line of thought lie please, gentlemen. There's no need to muddy the water with political labeling. If you can't discuss the subject civilly move on to another.

Thanks.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by delmarrey

This is the only study I could find that relates to our immediate area. And all the credits are on the last pages.

Multiple sediment samples taken both inside and outside the Port Townsend Marina in Washington State were measured for copper and TBT concentrations (15). The copper was found to be 62 ppm in the marina and 29.2 ppm outside the marina while TBT was found to be 46.5 ppb inside the marina and 1.9 ppb outside the marina. Therefore the level of copper inside the marina was approximately twice that of outside the marina, while the level of TBT was 24 times greater inside versusoutsidethemarina. Thestudy concluded that TBT levels were significantly higher inside versus outside the marina relative to copper because the sediments in the entire port have a significant natural copper concentration level of approximately 29 ppm. The study stated that only 1% of the copper in the bay outside the marina was from antifouling.
Copper is an essential element required for normal growth in all plants and animals. As such, it is considered a normal constituent in the ecosystem in both soil and water where its presence is partially due to the metabolic by-products of plants and animals as previously discussed. The amount of copper required for normal metabolism is small, and for this reason the metal is considered a micronutrient. At both high and low concentrations copper can be detrimental to organisms.

http://www.chemet.com/file.asp?F=Cop...PDF&C=articles

Those are scary numbers. The EPA's standard for toxicity of copper in seawater is 3.1 PPM. So 62 PPM in the PT marina is a huge concentration of toxicity, 20 times the EPA standard. And they're still getting 30 PPM outside the marina in the bay! Just goes to show that Puget Sound and surrounding inland waters really need this law. The TBT measurement's are even more revealing. 24 times greater inside the marina than outside! 46.5 PPM in the marina (very high) and 1.9 outside, very low. That says it all as far as TBT goes. And this after many years of a ban!

[delmarrey]

Please do read the whole article!

Also it is important to note that the vast majority of input of copper into the ocean environment comes from riverine particulate and 90-95% of that is removed as sediments in the ocean margins. Therefore 80-90% of total copper input into ocean water is removed as sediments in ocean margins.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by delmarrey

Please do read the whole article!


Also it is important to note that the vast majority of input of copper into the ocean environment comes from riverine particulate and 90-95% of that is removed as sediments in the ocean margins. Therefore 80-90% of total copper input into ocean water is removed as sediments in ocean margins.

Yes, 80%-90% or more of copper in seawater comes from land based runoff. And that results in a concentration in seawater well below the EPA's 3.1 PPM toxicity guideline. How does that affect the high readings made here in the Sound? The extremely high readings taken in PT are 20 times or more the average concentration of copper in seawater. This was not caused by riverine runoff. The fact that the readings inside the harbor are double the readings outside a short distance away makes it quite clear where it IS coming from.

[minaret]

Note also the author of the article you linked too.

Neal Blossom

This guy is not a scientist!

Director of Global Regulatory Affairs at American Chemet Corporation. Member of Safinah Marine Coatings Group. American Chemet is a major producer of "copper based chemicals" from Montana. Could one of these "copper based chemicals" be cuprous oxide, just maybe? LOL!!
I love how righties like to use the corporation in questions "research" to support their views. Makes me want to laugh while simultaneously pissing me off.


American Chemet Corporation - Manufacturer of Cuprous Oxide - Cuprous Oxide

American Chemet Corporation - Products - Cuprous Oxide

Neal Blossom | LinkedIn

Just more of the usual corporate spin. What I like about it is if you read between the lines of their for profit BS, the numbers they are quoting are quite scary. Even they can't spin it THAT much if you know what you're looking at. 60 parts per million doesn't sound like much, unless you know the standard for toxicity is 3.1 ppm, which they conveniently don't mention.
I'm sure you'll say these guys are unbiased 'cause they're in the private sector, and the EPA has an agenda. Laughable! These guys make billions of dollars strip mining in Montana. I wouldn't believe a word they say.


Quote:


"American Chemet Corporation is the largest and most versatile manufacturer of cuprous oxide in the world. Our leading technology allows for production of cuprous oxide with unique properties including low tint strength LoLo Tint TM which is used to produce brighter colored antifouling coatings. Chemet CDC™ is a patented product offering reduced leach rates, and improved stability with anti-fouling co-biocides and resin systems. "

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse74

Here is the thing that chaps my a@@ about this law. It does not apply to everyone. If the copper bottom paint is so bad, ban it completely. Do not pick out certain boats it applies to and other boats that are exempt. I don't think this law could stand up to a legal challenge on that basis.

I bet it could. For example, most vessels that are exempt from the copper ban in Washington (and SB 623 in California) are already regulated for copper discharges by the USEPA's Vessel General Permit.

http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/vessel_vgp_permit.pdf

[delmarrey]

Originally Posted by minaret

Note also the author of the article you linked too.

Neal Blossom

This guy is not a scientist!

Director of Global Regulatory Affairs at American Chemet Corporation. Member of Safinah Marine Coatings Group. American Chemet is a major producer of "copper based chemicals" from Montana. Could one of these "copper based chemicals" be cuprous oxide, just maybe? LOL!!
I love how righties like to use the corporation in questions "research" to support their views. Makes me want to laugh while simultaneously pissing me off.

Just like in politics! It's money fighting money. Who can you believe?

[minaret]

Del's quote-

"Also it would take 23,000 years for the current antifouling copper input to equal the existing copper in the world’s oceans."


We aren't talking about the whole ocean though, we are talking about high concentrations in relatively small areas like harbors and surrounding bays, and inland bodies of seawater like Puget Sound and the Chesapeake. Do the math, if the current anti-fouling leech rate can match the copper content of the all of the worlds oceans in 23,000 years, how long will it take to reach the same levels in the tiny fraction of a percent of the worlds seawater that makes up our harbors and inland waterways? Not long at all I'm thinking. We're not talking about polluting the whole ocean, just certain areas which we still value. Just another misleading figure. It sounds good, like most spin, but has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.