- Email: [email protected]
Western states restrict TBT paints
Volume 18/Number 10/October 1987
New Jersey beaches along a 56 km (35 mile) stretch were closed for three days in late spring until the source of brown unsightly water could be traced to a naturallyoccurring algal bloom. Simultaneous occurrence on the beach of 'greaseballs' that contained more than 200 ppm faecal coliforms led to concern that sewage pollution was responsible for a 16 km (10 mile) plume of discoloured water. The beaches were reopened when all sewage plants and barges in the vicinity were checked and when 200 water samples were found not to have elevated bacterial levels. The beaches were kept closed until they could be cleaned of the greaseballs that were from an unknown source, but that were undoubtedly transported to the beaches by the same strong winds which brought the algal bloom inshore. The greaseballs presented no health hazard unless disturbed, but officials were concerned about the potential for infections caused and spread by people stepping on the balls. It was theorized the greaseb~lls and associated debris could have originated from the New York Bight Apex Sewage Sludge Site or from ship traffic in New York City's harbour. Continued pu.blic concern regarding the debris washed onto New Jersey beaches had led the US EPA and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to initiate a study to determine the fate of debris originating in New York Harbor, Raritan Bay, and areas further offshore.
Bull. 18, 190, 264, 427). The most restrictive of the new laws is Washington State's ban on use of tributyltin in marine paints. Oregon has passed a bill that becomes effective in the fall of 1987 and that restricts sales and use of the TBT paints. The Oregon law allows use of low-leaching-rate paints on aluminium-hulled vessels, on all ships more than 25 metres in length, and in spray cans that are designated as motor paints and are less than one-half litre (16 ounces or less). AlumiNumhulled vessels were granted the exemption because these ships cannot use alternative anti-fouling paint formulations. The Oregon law also allows ship repair contractors at the Port of Portland to continue with use of TBT paints in order to remain competitive with other repair facilities across the nation. Alaska has also passed legislation that would ban the sale or use of TBT marine paints or coatings beginning in December 1987. Alaska's law does not apply to slowleaching TBT paints and makes exceptions for foreign, US government, and large vessels. The Alaska ruling also prohibits use of fish culture and capture nets that were treated with TBT marine coatings before December 1987. Such nets cannot be used in state waters beginning in December 1992. Legislation has also been introduced in the US Congress and in the California legislature to restrict TBT paints. The bills introduced into the US Congress would ban use of marine paints that release more than 0.5 ~tg cm -2 d -~. The bills are designed to restrict use of the paints throughout US waters until EPA can rule on future uses of the paints based on a special review the Agency is now conducting on fate and effects of the compounds in the marine environment. A second bill was introduced in the House of Representatives that would restrict use of all organotin compounds in marine paints. Both EPA and the Navy have testified in Congressional hearings that they oppose passage of chemical-specific legislation. The Navy also requested that aluminium-hull vessels be exempted from the TBT paint ban. It appears that the number of TBT-based paint formulations potentially on the market has already been substantially reduced (see Mar. Pollut. Bull. 18, 427). Approximately 70% of these product formulations either have been voluntarily withdrawn by their manufacturers or probably will have their registrations cancelled by EPA because their manufacturers did not submit data, including release rates, on the formulations to EPA. Even though a large demand for the paints still exists, the legislative restrictions on and voluntary withdrawal of high-release-rate paints should greatly reduce the amount of TBT released into the environment.
Western States Restrict T B T Paints
Low P C B Levels in N e w Bedford Residents
States in the Western US have instituted restrictions on the use of anti-fouling marine paints containing tributyltin (TBT) compounds. Although restrictions vary state-to-state and allow a number of exemptions, it is
A joint federal-state study report has revealed that, despite the high PCB concentrations found by the EPA in New Bedford Harbor, the residents of the area do not have unusually high blood levels of the chemicals. Available from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, the report details that the three-year survey of 1200 randomly-selected residents found only 1.3% of
numbers of softshell clam spats, or recently settled clams, increased during the monitoring period, but their survival rates were low. It is hypothesized that these low survival rates may be caused by heavy predation by the abundant blue crab or by unknown water quality perturbations. Sediment, clam, and worm samples contained a variety of organic contaminants, with polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) most commonly detected. Baltimore Harbor samples were most contaminated, with PAH levels of 10 000 ppb, and were the only samples with detectable PCB levels. Other areas sampled, such as the mouth of the Potomac River, were found to have PAH concentrations of only 1 ppb. The lower Chesapeake Bay samples analysed revealed a general increase in toxic contaminant levels since 1979. The report stated basic information is still needed to understand the Bay ecosystem and to properly manage its rehabilitation. Outstanding questions are related to the fate, transport, and transformation of contaminants and nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay system (see Mar. Pollut. Bull. 18,264).
N e w Jersey B e a c h e s Closed
clear that state legislatures are concerned about the effects the TBT compounds that leach out of the paints might have on the marine environment (see Mar. Pollut.
519
New Jersey beaches along a 56 km (35 mile) stretch were closed for three days in late spring until the source of brown unsightly water could be traced to a naturallyoccurring algal bloom. Simultaneous occurrence on the beach of 'greaseballs' that contained more than 200 ppm faecal coliforms led to concern that sewage pollution was responsible for a 16 km (10 mile) plume of discoloured water. The beaches were reopened when all sewage plants and barges in the vicinity were checked and when 200 water samples were found not to have elevated bacterial levels. The beaches were kept closed until they could be cleaned of the greaseballs that were from an unknown source, but that were undoubtedly transported to the beaches by the same strong winds which brought the algal bloom inshore. The greaseballs presented no health hazard unless disturbed, but officials were concerned about the potential for infections caused and spread by people stepping on the balls. It was theorized the greaseb~lls and associated debris could have originated from the New York Bight Apex Sewage Sludge Site or from ship traffic in New York City's harbour. Continued pu.blic concern regarding the debris washed onto New Jersey beaches had led the US EPA and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to initiate a study to determine the fate of debris originating in New York Harbor, Raritan Bay, and areas further offshore.
Bull. 18, 190, 264, 427). The most restrictive of the new laws is Washington State's ban on use of tributyltin in marine paints. Oregon has passed a bill that becomes effective in the fall of 1987 and that restricts sales and use of the TBT paints. The Oregon law allows use of low-leaching-rate paints on aluminium-hulled vessels, on all ships more than 25 metres in length, and in spray cans that are designated as motor paints and are less than one-half litre (16 ounces or less). AlumiNumhulled vessels were granted the exemption because these ships cannot use alternative anti-fouling paint formulations. The Oregon law also allows ship repair contractors at the Port of Portland to continue with use of TBT paints in order to remain competitive with other repair facilities across the nation. Alaska has also passed legislation that would ban the sale or use of TBT marine paints or coatings beginning in December 1987. Alaska's law does not apply to slowleaching TBT paints and makes exceptions for foreign, US government, and large vessels. The Alaska ruling also prohibits use of fish culture and capture nets that were treated with TBT marine coatings before December 1987. Such nets cannot be used in state waters beginning in December 1992. Legislation has also been introduced in the US Congress and in the California legislature to restrict TBT paints. The bills introduced into the US Congress would ban use of marine paints that release more than 0.5 ~tg cm -2 d -~. The bills are designed to restrict use of the paints throughout US waters until EPA can rule on future uses of the paints based on a special review the Agency is now conducting on fate and effects of the compounds in the marine environment. A second bill was introduced in the House of Representatives that would restrict use of all organotin compounds in marine paints. Both EPA and the Navy have testified in Congressional hearings that they oppose passage of chemical-specific legislation. The Navy also requested that aluminium-hull vessels be exempted from the TBT paint ban. It appears that the number of TBT-based paint formulations potentially on the market has already been substantially reduced (see Mar. Pollut. Bull. 18, 427). Approximately 70% of these product formulations either have been voluntarily withdrawn by their manufacturers or probably will have their registrations cancelled by EPA because their manufacturers did not submit data, including release rates, on the formulations to EPA. Even though a large demand for the paints still exists, the legislative restrictions on and voluntary withdrawal of high-release-rate paints should greatly reduce the amount of TBT released into the environment.
Western States Restrict T B T Paints
Low P C B Levels in N e w Bedford Residents
States in the Western US have instituted restrictions on the use of anti-fouling marine paints containing tributyltin (TBT) compounds. Although restrictions vary state-to-state and allow a number of exemptions, it is
A joint federal-state study report has revealed that, despite the high PCB concentrations found by the EPA in New Bedford Harbor, the residents of the area do not have unusually high blood levels of the chemicals. Available from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, the report details that the three-year survey of 1200 randomly-selected residents found only 1.3% of
numbers of softshell clam spats, or recently settled clams, increased during the monitoring period, but their survival rates were low. It is hypothesized that these low survival rates may be caused by heavy predation by the abundant blue crab or by unknown water quality perturbations. Sediment, clam, and worm samples contained a variety of organic contaminants, with polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) most commonly detected. Baltimore Harbor samples were most contaminated, with PAH levels of 10 000 ppb, and were the only samples with detectable PCB levels. Other areas sampled, such as the mouth of the Potomac River, were found to have PAH concentrations of only 1 ppb. The lower Chesapeake Bay samples analysed revealed a general increase in toxic contaminant levels since 1979. The report stated basic information is still needed to understand the Bay ecosystem and to properly manage its rehabilitation. Outstanding questions are related to the fate, transport, and transformation of contaminants and nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay system (see Mar. Pollut. Bull. 18,264).
N e w Jersey B e a c h e s Closed
clear that state legislatures are concerned about the effects the TBT compounds that leach out of the paints might have on the marine environment (see Mar. Pollut.
519