SailNet Community banner
  • SailNet is a forum community dedicated to Sailing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about sailing, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, repairs, reviews, maintenance, and more!

First they took the TBT....now they want the paint!

6K views 65 replies 36 participants last post by  Brent Swain 
#1 ·
Caveat: No, I'm not making this up!

The government is after more than your guns and 32 oz soda pop! The EPA is now coming for your bottom paint. And I don't mean that they want to take the copper out becauses it may change the sex of mollusks.....the SOB's now are trying to force us to be green (as in the moss that will grow on your hull) by limiting the amount of anti-fouling we can use.

I got a letter last week from my boat yard announcing "extremely important environmental issues...that will require your co-operation in order to comply with a new set of regulations".

The letter goes on to say:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has come up with some very stringent requirements, similar to those already in force in California and many other states, regarding Volitile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions, not only on the various paints and products used by NEB (the yard), but all emissions on site whether by individual customers or sub-contractors. The most common targets of these regulations are bottom paints and thinners, but also include varnishes and paints whether enamels, acrylics or epoxies. NEB is required by law to provide an accounting of all VOC emitting products used on site to the EPA, with a cap on usage amounts, and substantial penalties for non-compliance.
A paragraph or so later it mentions how they're going to enforce the new edict:

We will require all customers when scheduling a launch to sign the enclosed statement indicating whether they painted the bottom and/or used any other paint or thinner products to prepare for launch, what paint or products were used and how much. If you hire a subcontractor to paint your bottom or for other work, they will have to countersign the form as being accurate. We will not launch boats without a signed affidavit of material useage.
And then they get to the consequences for me and thee (bold in the original):

The strict limit on VOC emissions throughout the entire faciltiy imposed on us by the EPA, will expose NEB to substantial fines if it is exceeded. We will be tracking eimssions on an ongoing basis and, if it appears that we are going to exceed the permissible volume, in a worst case scenario we would have to strictly limit or possibly even prohibit use of VOC emitting product to ensure that we do not exceed these limits. Althought this may appear draconian we do not have any alternative option at this time.
So, you ask, "How bad could it be?"

I googled "EPA VOC boat yards" and found this:Annapolis Admiralty and Maritime Law Attorneys Lochner Law Firm, P.C. - Admiralty and Maritime Law, Boat, Boatinglaw, Boating Law, Law - BOATINGLAW.COM - New Regulations on Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions

It appears from the above url that California and Maryland have set the limit at 15 pounds of VOCs per day per boat yard. Your average gallon of bottom paint has around 4 pounds of VOC. That would limit the yard to less than 4 gallons of bottom paint to be applied per day -- to say nothing of the other paints and varnishes that may be in progress that day.

This spring I will use about three gallons of Micron 66 on BR's hull. If Rhode Island has the same limits as CA and MD, I'm going to eat up most of the entire yard's daily quota the moment I crack the lid on the first 3 gallon can. I guess I should plan on being at the yard as the sun rises so I can be the first antifouler in line that day.

When is this lunacy going to end?

:puke
 
See less See more
#3 ·
A few weeks ago I started a thread asking about the bottom paints now being advertised that are less toxic... While there was a fair amount of response to this, I am still largely in the dark as to the relative quality and effectiveness of the new stuff coming on line and how they in fact reduce harmful compounds. I would think that this is a heavy-duty topic for the established sailing/boating magazine... unless they are afraid to speak up and ruffle the feathers of their advertisers... I do look forward to a solution that is more environmentally friendly.

Now, going sideways with this issue, perhaps we'll see people going back to careening somewhere the old-fashioned way, around the corner from the marina, somewhere with a suitable range in the tide, to slap some paint on the bottom after scraping off the barnacles...
 
#6 ·
We in the fine state of Washington have about six years left before copper paint is banned. Hopefully we will be gone by then for warmer waters far far south of here by then. Oddly, here, the law only applies to recreational boaters below 65 feet in length. Because we all know that those private boat owners who have boats larger than 65 feet head out of the Puget Sound every winter (so their impact must be less). What fu%^ing hog wash. Let's not discuss all the commercial boats/ships who are also not under the new regulation. More hogwash. Once again, the little guy gets all the focus and attention.
 
#7 ·
Yeah, well, we're subject to the same regulations, but the response hasn't been nearly so draconian. I'm required to put down a tarp before sanding or painting (dry sanding is OK, for wet sanding I'd need a vacuum attachment) and dispose of any debris before I pack up for the day. No biggie. Maybe you just need to find a more reasonable yard.

Grb a Big Gulp and mull it over.
 
#8 ·
The VAST majority of the yards in the Puget Sound no longer allow boat owners to put on their own bottom paint. The WA branch of the Marine Trade Association loves this stuff and is a huge supporter of this regulation. Why you ask, well if people have to put crappy paint on their boat they will just have to get it hauled and serviced by one of their member Yards more often. And btw, the Yard has to put the crappy paint on, you are not allowed.
 
#9 ·
A recent article in 48 north pointed out how most of the copper in Puget Sound comes from brake shoes and only a tiny portion comes from antifouling, an even tinier portion from pleasure boats under 65 feet.
 
#11 ·
Well, my boatyard is small and I usually get painted in mid-winter when it's slow but I've never had them say they can't do it because they've used up their paint allowance for the week. Maybe bottom paints here in CA are already lower, every other kind of finish is.
 
#12 ·
If you look on the shelves for the coming season of new paints. most manufactures have lower VOC and non copper based paints on the market. Many are even water based. So places like Washington st where Kellysails and I are, it will not be hard with in the next 4-5 yrs or so to get bottom paint on that meets the laws. The issue will be, is many of us are now forced to also strip the bottom before then, or at least as part of a sale after the fact of having the bottom stripped of all copper based paint, even if covered with non copper paint. Which frankly is going to be a pain for many folks! At least now with homes, if you think you may have lead in the paint/asbestos somewhere, ie house is older than about 1970, you can sign a waiver to the effect it may have this issues, buyer beware!

If I am reading the wa st law tho, I can have the copper based paint on the boat, covered with non copper for as long as I own the boat, so if I own the boat for another 20-30 yrs, I will not have to strip the bottom until that time!

Marty
 
#16 ·
It has nothing to do with the administration. The EPA took on a life of its own decades ago.

For all things like this, look to L.A. to see what the future holds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jrd22 and olson34
#17 ·
The MD regulation allows 3.3 pounds/gallon VOC.

Pettit Ultima SR 60 contains only 2.9 pound/gallon VOC (MSDS). SR 40 is a bit lower.

I guess we have to check the products one at a time. But perhaps no gloom and doom. The local yard confirmed that this would not change their anti-fouling product line-up.
 
#18 ·
billy, "zero VOC" limits in paints and other "coatings" have been around for nearly 20 years now in many states and industries. No big surprise if someone wants to push for water-based bottom paints now too, after all, the industry has had 20 years to catch up on the new technology.

If the EPA really had any stones, they'd just ban all recreational boating, since it disturbs the marine habitat with no good reason.
 
#19 · (Edited)
...If the EPA really had any stones, they'd just ban all recreational boating, since it disturbs the marine habitat with no good reason.
Or breathing, since it causes release of H2O vapor, the primary greenhouse gas. Just give them time... and all those billions of bullets.

-----

Meanwhile, while we fiddle (with EPA regs), China is putting the final economic squeeze on us. Same globe:



same globe:


same globe:


same globe:


same globe:


same globe:


same globe:


same globe:


same globe:


same globe:


The Arabs have got to be laughing at our rediculous squamishness about drilling near reindeer (especially after the mega spill in the gulf where news coverage was strictly limited, and how we look the other way regarding Venezualian gulf drilling mega spills). And the Chinese have got to be laughing at our EPA regulations. Heck if they had any brains, they'd probably help fund that viewpoint within the U.S. And then there's the Pentagon saying their number one threat is environmental.

I'm not advocating pollution -- far from it! I think they should spend their energies on the whole-scale mass destruction of our environment and leave the tiny blips alone. But what do you expect when they can get away with ignoring nuclear proliferation just by handing out a bunch of free phones to voters.

Regards,
Brad
 
  • Like
Reactions: jrd22
#22 ·
This also has nothing to do with the feds, the regs here in Wa st were passed by the nimwits in Olympia! We here on the left coast do not need the nimwits on the right coast to screw us over on items like this. Ca is the same, the nimwits in Sacramento are doing them over! Not sure about them right leaning folks on the right coast!

Marty
 
#23 ·
Personally, what gets me is the fact that the recreational boater will be subject to these laws. Owners of larger boats and commercial shipping (i.e. those who can afford lobbyists) will be exempt.

I don't know how many cargo ships go in and out of SF bay every day, but I would bet that the copper leeched off their hulls (not to mention other pollutants and invasive species) far outweigh the recreational boats.

I am reluctantly okay with the guidelines, given (1) there is a good alternative to copper-based paints, (2) the alternatives are not hugely expensive - even now it takes me a few years to save enough for a new bottom job - and (3) the law is universally applied - no exceptions for special interest groups.

It is times like this when working together with a group like BoatUS may give us the leverage to negotiate a rational solution.
 
#24 ·
There is a deafening absence of perspective here. I live on the Merrimac River which used to change colors daily depending on what factory was dumping upriver. Eagles were an historical memory and the water was unswimmable. The EPA that is being reviled here is the same EPA that cleaned up the water I swim in and the air I breath in today. Eagles soar the length of the river and nest a mile from my mooring. I for one don't aspire to an environment like the chinese are living in and I'm pleased with the stewardship we have shown as a nation for our natural resources. A lot has been accomplished by dedicated scientists and bureaucrats in the EPA. It might be nice to hear about the science behind the regulation before we condemn it.
 
#31 · (Edited)
Yeah, though it does affect me personally, at some point, someone has to stop dumping poison into the environment.

Everybody bitches that you can't buy a 2 stroke or a charcoal BBQ in Los Angeles, and forgets the simple fact that those regulations were brought in to fix a rather serious problem. It's true that the regs aren't applied equally, the solution to cars putting more copper into rivers than boats is not to let boats do 'whatever' the solution is to demand cuts to the real polluters as well.

And try to get a little perspective, it can always be worse: you cannot buy propane at all in Newport beach, not because of any environmental reasons but because the city has decided that it smells bad. McDonalds had to install a one-of-a-kind air filtration system in order to get building permits to remodel an existing restaurant because heaven forbid if a french fry odor my possibly waft by the Ferrari dealership.
 
#28 ·
No such problems here in the U.K. yet.
But if there is money that can be made from it i am sure somebody will try.

But at the moment you can paint on anything you want and as many times as you wish and I guess just about anywhere you want to do it .No restrictions.

There are beaches here that people have moored on waited for the tide to go out and as it starts to go out scrape of the bottom and before the tide returns re paint...Not so many yachts though unless like mine they have twin bilge keels.
 
#29 ·
We have two boats. A 28' Islander and a 15' Marshal Cat. I have been using an ablative, solvent based, copper on the Islander and an ablative, water born, copper on the cat boat for 5 years. I see no difference in the protection. The vehicle, (solvent or water) doesn't seem to affect the af properties. I prefer handling the water born paint and am planning to use it on both boats from now on. Who needs to smell xylene if you don't have to? I didn't try the water born paint as a response to any regulation. I just liked the thought of getting away from handling the solvent. Clean up is much easier and more pleasant. Water is cheaper than xylene, too.:D

TBT used to be my fave! It was / is very toxic. Copper allows considerable more fouling than the TBT of old. There wasn't even slime with Micron 22. Seal Harbor "enjoys" a reputation of being a high fouling harbor. Now, all I get is slime if I use the boats. The ablative properties along with the copper keep them reasonably clean. The only "beard" I get is from splash at the boot tops. Perhaps it is time to raise them? Water borne technology has come of age and we should embrace it for personal convenience and safety if it works. I think it does. It has for me.

As far as a substitute for copper, I don't have any experience with any of the new copper free af paints, yet. I guess it is time to try one. I will paint the cat boat with a water born one this year and see how it works.

Having to remove all old copper is over the top! If it was in an ablative paint it has ablated! If it was in a leaching paint it has leached. If it is in a hard paint it is contained.

Down
 
#32 ·
This is the same thing that people were screaming about in the auto industry. Yes there were a few years where the regulations were ahead of the technology, but the new paints are far better than before. VOCs would never have been removed from other land based paints if it was not required by regulations. I imagine we will have a few years of bottom paint that does not preform quite as well, but it will come around. Reports of the new bottom paint is promising. VOCs have been reduced if not removed from most other paints and everyone said it could not be done. Biggest issue is that most commercial work is done offshore anyway, so our regulations will not effect them.

I live on the Hudson River, and it has problems but we can swim in it again, and that would never have happened if it were not for the EPA and Pete Seeger. Regulations can work, much to Fox News dismay.
 
#41 ·
This has been in the works for years, so I doubt it has anything to do with the Obama administration. By the way he has basically been moderate on the environment with the exception of the Keystone Pipeline. And his position on that is not even very far left.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top