Washington State Copper Paint Law

[minaret]

Originally Posted by delmarrey

Very similar to what we use to do in San Diego/Misson Bay, for powerboats, back in the early 80's, but filling the bag with fresh water.

Looks like a very expensive set up, which would only be available for the home boys, not cruisers. That netting inside the bag must cost a pretty shinny penny, especially for a sailboat.

But hey! If you got the $$$$$$$ goforit.

The resistance it not to the anti-copper! It's to the politicians telling us what to do w/o first coming up with replacement technology. If they want to gain favor, push the producers to come up with an alternative letting them know copper based products will be banned within a short time. Then see what happens! Leave u$ little weak guy$ alone!!!!! This is what starts revolutions.

Politicians are not scientists, do you really expect them to get in the lab and "come up with something better"?! Pushing the producers to come up with an alternative is exactly what this law is all about, and this is the only way lawmakers have to provide that push. Big business won't listen to anything less than a big stick. I think the rest of the country should be thanking Washington State for doing this, as a solution will affect everyone everywhere without them having to deal with the legislation. And, really, a revolution!? Over bottom paint? What histrionics.

[cal40john]

Originally Posted by David M

You nailed it.

Government owned sources of pollution such as street runoff and sewage treatment plants that are overwhelmed during major storm events are at least 99% of the problem...at least in the SF Bay and other urban harbors.

Boat owners are an easy target to pick on and in reality are a drop in the bucket of the real problem.

The environmental groups would better serve the environment if they went after the government agencies who are responsible for the pollution.

The head of the environmental group that sued the boatyards in Seattle admitted in an interview that his group was suing the boatyards instead of the government because they knew they wouldn't get anywhere suing the government.

John

[delmarrey]

Originally Posted by cal40john

The head of the environmental group that sued the boatyards in Seattle admitted in an interview that his group was suing the boatyards instead of the government because they knew they wouldn't get anywhere suing the government.

John

If you've ever worked for a government org. like the City of Seattle (I did) you'll find that they hold hands with E groups and others. One of the many reasons I moved on, got tired of reverse prejudice and favoritism by the PC crowd. Went to supervisor training meetings that turned my stomach. The hard working man even with good intel has little chance against the influx of the overwhelming population of newly hired........... group supporters. Talk about govn't corruption!

[hummingway]

Originally Posted by delmarrey

Leave u$ little weak guy$ alone!!!!! This is what starts revolutions.

So, what you're saying is we're not so weak after all?

I can see it now. A bunch of middle age folks in sailboats flying the Cruiser's Forum burgee and yelling slogans such as ... give us something better then a Rocna or give us death.

[delmarrey]

Originally Posted by hummingway

So, what you're saying is we're not so weak after all?

I can see it now. A bunch of middle age folks in sailboats flying the Cruiser's Forum burgee and yelling slogans such as ... give us something better then a Rocna or give us death.

Not all protests/revolutions are successful! Look at the Middle East right now. A lot of people are not willing to get involved these days (complacency). The bigger the govn't the harder to control.
They pass laws controlling people and exempt themselves and/or their sponsors.
The governor, she has run the state into debt and asks for another credit card, just like my ex. She's looking for anything to improve her status.

We have a lot more E issues out there to solve other then just copper, like the storage of industrial chem's that get washed into the street runoff drains and into the ocean. They could install huge drain traps, like at a car wash, to catch chem's/metals. Copper is a natural product that flows out of the mountains, along with other heavy metals and settles in the mud. But no! Lets ban something that the general public needs, and especially here in America. Mean while abroad.................

What about at the Asarco smelter, metals including arsenic, cadmium, copper and lead were released into the soil, air and bay and metals from slag have migrated to surface and groundwater. Soil in the Ruston/North Tacoma study area is contaminated by arsenic and lead. Soil, surface water and groundwater across most of the Tacoma Tar Pits site is contaminated by metals, PAHs, PCBs, and VOCs including benzene, from a former coal gasification plant and recycling operations. Ship building, oil refining, chemical manufacture and storage and other industrial activity has contaminated the land and sediments of the bay with hazardous waste.

In the Tacoma Landfill site, soil and groundwater are contaminated by VOCs and heavy metals; groundwater is also contaminated by PAHs. Groundwater at Well 12A is contaminated by VOCs and soil by VOCs and lead. Industrial activities at South Tacoma Field led to soil contamination by lead, arsenic, copper and PCBs and groundwater contamination by VOCs and petroleum hydrocarbons.

At Harbor Island groundwater contains benzene, ethylbenzene, xylene, mercury, cadmium, lead and zinc but is not a source of drinking water. Soil is contaminated primarily by heavy metals, PCBs and petroleum and sediments near the island by heavy metals, PAHs, tributyl tin and PCBs.

Even the govn't itself contributed with the Naval Air Station Whidbey Island (seaplanes). Soil in areas of the seaplane base was contaminated by heavy metals including lead and arsenic, pesticides and PAHs. But, contaminated soil has been removed; possible remaining groundwater, surface water and sediment contamination is not thought to pose a risk to human health or the environment.

As a once Hazardous Waste Manager in a machine shop I know how hard it is to control hazmat and understand PPM's.
But who sets these standards???? It must have been the same Doctor that kept issuing me pain meds for my back and told me not to use them on the job. Then later says "Oh, you need back surgery now". <sarcasm>

I agree copper bottom paint may have an impact on the E, but the govern't approach is what's out of line. Who's job is it to protect the people from them selves?
Agreed, some people need to be managed and those are the money grabbers. The American industry has practically been wiped out due to them.

[Ironhorse74]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

That's the point. The reason commercial vessels are exempted from copper paint legislation is that commercial vessels are already regulated by the Vessel General Permit.

Ok let me try to make the point one more time. It does not apply to all boats equally. Yes I understand that commercial boats are regulated by the EPA. Here is a link to the original article:

Pacific Northwest Boating News: Washington becomes first state to ban copper paint for recreational boats | Three Sheets Northwest

And I quote from that article "The law applies only to recreational boats 65 feet and under."

If copper paint is that bad, why are they exempting pleasure boats over 65 feet? A law that is fair applies to all citizens and I think this law can be turned over in court.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse74

Ok let me try to make the point one more time. It does not apply to all boats equally. Yes I understand that commercial boats are regulated by the EPA. Here is a link to the original article:

Pacific Northwest Boating News: Washington becomes first state to ban copper paint for recreational boats | Three Sheets Northwest

And I quote from that article "The law applies only to recreational boats 65 feet and under."

If copper paint is that bad, why are they exempting pleasure boats over 65 feet? A law that is fair applies to all citizens and I think this law can be turned over in court.

I agree that that part of the law is unfair, and probably because of the clout of wealthy bigwigs. But why try to overturn a perfectly sensible law on that basis, instead why not try to make them apply it to everyone? That would be more fair and the right thing to do. And no one will try to overturn it, because the NMTA did this voluntarily. They have the most clout when it comes to this, and they aren't arguing the point. Because it's better for everyone involved if someone comes up with a non-toxic solution. No one will get sued anymore or have to install expensive filtration systems, and everyone can then go home happy. The law doesn't apply for another 9 years, and then only to new boats. All they are doing is trying to apply pressure for a better solution. As someone who has probably taken a lot of years off his life by sanding hundreds of boat bottoms, I really applaud this. Better for fish, better for people, better for boatyards, better for everyone. There will obviously be a period of adjustment, but I don't think it will cost anyone here anything extra to deal with. It will be a very long time before this law applies to your boat, and by then some lucky person will almost certainly have developed a solution. If not, I'm sure the political pressure will become great enough to reverse the law or extend the grandfather period.

[Ironhorse74]

Originally Posted by minaret

I agree that that part of the law is unfair, and probably because of the clout of wealthy bigwigs. But why try to overturn a perfectly sensible law on that basis, instead why not try to make them apply it to everyone? That would be more fair and the right thing to do. And no one will try to overturn it, because the NMTA did this voluntarily. They have the most clout when it comes to this, and they aren't arguing the point. Because it's better for everyone involved if someone comes up with a non-toxic solution. No one will get sued anymore or have to install expensive filtration systems, and everyone can then go home happy. The law doesn't apply for another 9 years, and then only to new boats. All they are doing is trying to apply pressure for a better solution. As someone who has probably taken a lot of years off his life by sanding hundreds of boat bottoms, I really applaud this. Better for fish, better for people, better for boatyards, better for everyone. There will obviously be a period of adjustment, but I don't think it will cost anyone here anything extra to deal with. It will be a very long time before this law applies to your boat, and by then some lucky person will almost certainly have developed a solution. If not, I'm sure the political pressure will become great enough to reverse the law or extend the grandfather period.

First off I do not think it is a sensible law. There is far more copper in the sound from vehicle brakes than there will ever be from boats.

Second of all I do not believe it applies just to new boats. The law says " no paint with more than 0.5 percent copper can be used on recreation boats as of 2020." That is eight years from now.

Finally I can't see what the NMTA has to do with a law that is now a state statute. They may have had input, however they do not represent me.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse74

First off I do not think it is a sensible law. There is far more copper in the sound from vehicle brakes than there will ever be from boats.

Second of all I do not believe it applies just to new boats. The law says " no paint with more than 0.5 percent copper can be used on recreation boats as of 2020." That is eight years from now.

Finally I can't see what the NMTA has to do with a law that is now a state statute. They may have had input, however they do not represent me.

Copper in brake pads is already banned here in WA, as Gord pointed out way back in post #54 with links. Just goes to show, they are not just trying to beat up on the little guy. They passed the brake pad ban first.
The NMTA had loads of input and chose to go this route to protect themselves from further lawsuits. And to have a cleaner, safer working environment. Sure they don't represent you, but they do represent me, as I am an employee of a member business. And we have way more clout on this issue than you do. That's how a democracy works, the majority rules. You must represent yourself or start your own organisation if you want to overturn this law. Try writing your congressman and good luck!

[delmarrey]

Originally Posted by minaret

I agree that that part of the law is unfair, and probably because of the clout of wealthy bigwigs. But why try to overturn a perfectly sensible law on that basis, instead why not try to make them apply it to everyone?

Maybe with that the bigwigs will sponsor research to develop an alternative bottom coating that works as well as copper based.
I still think a permanent Teflon coating would be the best. It's just how to get it to stick. They put a Dupont teflon in cook wear, why not boat bottoms. Discovery Online, The Skinny On ... Why Teflon Sticks to the Pan

[minaret]

Originally Posted by sarafina

Might not just be issues with the paint in the water... maybe the production of it and the disposal of it need to be taken into account to get a real picture of the possible impact.

Another important issue. Anyone familiar with strip mining in Montana? This is where Chemet corporation is getting the copper they make cuprous oxide from. Some of these open pit strip mining operations are now extremely toxic superfund sites which will be plagueing us for many generations. Is anyone here really OK with destroying Montana and poisoning it for generations in the name of their antifouling? 'Cause that's what will happen if they keep this up. Or OK with the same industry that does this putting toxic goo in your coastal waters for a profit? Do some research on copper mining, it's reprehensible. Obviously the copper will continue to be mined regardless, since it has countless uses and is becoming increasingly valuable, but any step in the direction of awareness of the toxic nature of this industry is a good thing. More regulation is clearly needed, not more superfund sites.

Berkeley Pit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Ironhorse74]

Originally Posted by minaret

The NMTA had loads of input and chose to go this route to protect themselves from further lawsuits. And to have a cleaner, safer working environment. Sure they don't represent you, but they do represent me, as I am an employee of a member business. And we have way more clout on this issue than you do. That's how a democracy works, the majority rules. You must represent yourself or start your own organisation if you want to overturn this law. Try writing your congressman and good luck!

What you just described is government for and by the special interests. As a long time helmet rights campaigner, I can tell you even big insurance companies, with a lot of bucks and lobbyists can be defeated by a determined group of citizens.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse74

What you just described is government for and by the special interests. As a long time helmet rights campaigner, I can tell you even big insurance companies, with a lot of bucks and lobbyists can be defeated by a determined group of citizens.

Government for and by the special interests is what we do in the USA, and you certainly can't blame the left for that! All the big special interests are conservative to say the least. Get used to it. It's not going anywhere anytime soon. If you want to get involved in bringing back the poison, start a campaign! I can see the advertisements now..
Good luck selling that one, LOL!

[s/v Jedi]

What a heated discussion all because of some local government and citizens head banging. The solution is obvious and simple, no need to erect public platforms and special interest groups and more political sluggish mass: those who do not agree can just load up the boat and leave them. Cleans up their water so they must be real happy about it too.

cheers,
Nick.

[sdowney717]

there are no good solutions to a problem and inventing one may not happen ever.
The politicians might tell you, if you dont want barnacles, pull the boat out of the water, and then say 'let them eat cake'

Rich elitist politicians and green do gooders love the environment and hate the common people. Only explanation for the madness taking over everywhere.

This is like E10 gasohol, which hurts MPG up to 10%, so is E10 saving us any Gasoline? It is partly green feel goodism that these things get started and when the facts come out, it is very difficult to stop the momentum.