Opening day at the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, Shipyards, Drydocks, Ports and Harbors Symposium in New Orleans, LA
provided an excellent review on what has been happening in the antifoulants world with regards to biocides, international bans and release rates for biocides such as copper. Because of environmental concerns, members of the International Maritime Organization agreed to a Global Antifoulant Treaty that bans the application of certain ship hull
antifoulants. The world's paint manufacturers have been working diligently to get approval on alternative paints containing biocides that are not banned as well as non-biocidal hull surfaces. The ban was due
to begin Jan. 1, 2003.The New Orleans Pollution Prevention Symposium seeks to answer a lot of issues that have arisen as consequence of a pending biocide ban. For instance, a lot of questions have arisen
regarding the Global Antifoulant Treaty. The conference keynote speaker, Bryan Wood-Thomas, the Senior Advisor on International Marine Policy Issues at the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) addressed many
of the concerns expressed by the shipping industry. He also explained exactly which biocides have been banned and dispelled some misconceptions that have surfaced. Further information regarding banned biocides,
called organotins or TBT, was also made available to conference delegates. Kiyoshi Shibata of Japan's National Maritime Research Institute discussed new rapid-response testing procedures for TBT. Other
speakers discussed field-testing of TBT-alternatives as well as reports on the efficacy of earlier bans on TBT. Organotin biocides are not the only substances under consideration for restrictions. Marianne
Pereira of Hempel A/S, a paint manufacturer, discussed an entirely new regulatory regime being established in the European Union. The aggressive Biocidal Products Directive seeks to review over 10,000 chemical
substances currently being used in Europe. Ms. Pereira discussed the BPD's effect on the shipping industry as it relates to antifoulants. In the afternoon, Elizabeth Haslbeck of the Naval Surface
Warfare Center ran a series of presentations on release rates of marine biocides. The comparison of lab studies with field studies was discussed and their relation to USEPA mandated water quality limits.
Keynote Address – Bryan Wood Thomas
, Sr. Advisor International Marine Policy Issues, USEPA - The Global Antifouling Treaty and Current Actions in the United States
Email:
Wood-Thomas.Bryan@epamail.epa.gov
Wood-Thomas began by dispelling a number of misconceptions that have arisen around the International Global Antifoulants Treaty.
Facts about the Treaty:
- All organotins are banned including tributyltin (TBT), DBT and MBT.
- The Treaty does NOT seek to review all antifoulants, nor make a list of "approved" antifoulants nor "rank" antifoulants.
- Consideration for future bans of additional antifoulants must follow a strict 2-tier process. New "calls" for bans must be extremely well documented with a lot of data.
Timing:
The Treaty will enter into force when 25 countries and 25% of world's tonnage ratify it. Wood-Thomas said 5 countries have ratified it so far and he expects entry into force by
2005. Panama & the Bahamas have indicated they will ratify soon, which will make up more than 25% of the world's tonnage. In the U.S. the treaty is currently in review at the executive branch.
Shipowners are already faced with a number of decisions regarding TBT containing antifoulants. Wood-Thomas discussed some of the choices and ramifications of each:
- Apply TBT after 2003?
If an owner expects assertive enforcement in port states they serve, then Wood-Thomas recommended that they do not take the risk of applying TBT, even
though the Treaty has not entered into force.
- Overcoat or seal?
This is a critical question in the minds of many ship owners. Wood-Thomas says the decision should take into consideration the amount of abrasion the vessel is
likely to take. Abrasion will affect the sealer, making it less effective.
Wood-Thomas notes that abrasion is inevitable on all ships. He points out that the Global Antifoulant Treaty states a vessel's hull must be sealed to encapsulate the
organotin biocides. It does NOT state that the hull should be sealed "to the owner's best ability." As strictly interpreted, Port States could decide that any TBT detected means non-compliance.
In reality, Wood-Thomas makes the point that ports are more interested in stopping the black market painting of TBT than in verifying sealer coats. Still, if an owner puts on a
poor hull sealant, the ship may get targeted as a black market TBT ship. Enforcement: Wood-Thomas stated that ship inspections are allowed under the treaty, even if the ship supplies a valid ship certificate and there are no clear grounds to believe that the hull
may have been painted with organotin antifoulants. Non-compliance with the Global Antifoulant Treaty could be very costly to ship owners. Current Actions: Although the Global Antifoulants treaty has not been enacted, many countries are
already taking unilateral action. According to Wood-Thomas, TBT production has stopped in 70% of the paint companies. The EU currently has banned all organotins on
EU flagged vessels and will be expanding the ban in 2008 to encompass all foreign flag vessels entering EU ports. Wood-Thomas also said he believes TBT production has been
voluntarily stopped in the U.S. It appears that many ship owners are already moving towards alternatives to TBT antifoulants.
Brad Shaw
, Corrpro Corp. – Update on US Navy Advance Antifouling Coating Needs
Email: BShaw@Corrpro.com
When considering adopting a new ship hull antifoulant, the U.S. Navy is concerned with
(1) speed, (2) Noise and (3) Cost. Shaw says that the Navy is currently looking for an effective coating to replace what they currently use. The Navy's goal is to reduce the
amount of copper discharged from their hull coatings.Shaw's group has looked at extensive testing throughout the U.S. Research has been
conducted in conjunction with Universities, Ports as well as the U.S. Coast Guard. The antifoulants under review have biocides that fall into three categories, (1) those without
copper, (2) those with low amounts of copper and (3) fouling release surfaces (without a biocide). Shaw explained the pros and cons of each tested category: Biocides without Copper
- None are currently registered for approved use in the U.S.
- Performed very well until washdown of vessel's hull.
- Upon cleaning, the antifoulants washed off. Those antifoulants tested were not found to hold up well mechanically.
Biocides with low copper
- Some were registered for approved use in the U.S. but not all.
- Performance on a few tests was similar to current copper biocide antifoulants.
- Held up mechanically after washing and over time of use.
Fouling release surfaces (no biocide)
- Most tested hull surfaces were those containing silicon.
- Only viable for a small cross section of Navy vessels due to problems of performance and durability on the long term.
Andy Jacobson, Rohm & Haas – Painting to Washdown: the Life of One Boat
Email: ajacobson@rohmhaas.com
Jacobson described the use of antifoulants containing the biocide Sea-Nine 211, a formulation using copper. He made the point that Sea-Nine 211 has been extensively
tested and its use on vessels' hulls has been proven to be environmentally safe as well as a highly effective antifoulant biocide.The main reason that the biocide is environmentally safe is because it's toxicity and
concentration significantly drops off at increasing distance from the ship. Jacobson says that this is not just due to a diffusion of the compound in water but clearly a
degradation of the biocide as it gets farther from the ship. At 2 meters distance from the hull Sea-Nine 211 has already reached the low detection limit.
Marianne B Pereira, Hempel A/S – The European Union's Biocidal Products Directive
Email: mbp@dk.hempel.com Speaking from the Paint Manufacturing perspective, Pereira described the European
Union's (EU) current program to authorize and register ALL chemical biocides for the entire EU. This program, called the Biocidal Products Directive or BPD, will harmonize
biocidal products across EU member states to make sure they are safe for humans and the environment. The massive undertaking will be reviewing many different types of
biocidal products including pesticides, cleaning products, biocides, antifoulants and even human cadaver preservatives.Pereira concentrated on the BPD as it pertains to vessel antifoulants. She noted that
antifoulants made prior to May 2000 will be allowed, subject to a 10 year review program. New antifoulants looking to enter the market today (post May 2000) may not
be sold until they have gained full EU evaluation and approval. Regardless of product date, all antifoulant manufacturers must submit a dossier by May
2006 with evaluations and tests that prove the safety of their antifoulant. "Competent" member states will be assigned to do evaluations based on the dossiers.
According to Pereira, paint manufacturers are very concerned about the high costs and ramifications associated with the tests. Evaluators may require them not only to re-test
their own products but all potential by-products that could result from their formulations. Estimated costs average at about $110,000 per study per product.
The advantage of the BPD, noted Pereira, is that finally there will be one regulatory scheme throughout all EU countries. This will eventually simplify registration procedures
and make it easier to introduce environmentally friendly biocides. In the meantime, manufacturers are very concerned about revocations of products that
have been used for years. The BPD has already gotten notification from suppliers of 586 substances indicating that they will not go along with the BPD process.
Michael Waldock, Center for Environment, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Science, UK. –
The Efficiacy of TBT Regulations in Providing Environmental Benefits
Email: M.J.Waldock@cefas.co.uk
Waldock used historical testing of tributyltin's (TBT) detrimental effect on shell thickening for Pacific oysters and imposex in dogwhelks to show that a 1987 ban on TBT was effective.
The tests used in Waldock's study were taken from '87-'92. At that time TBT was first banned internationally on pleasure craft and small vessels. One particular study showed
that oyster shells had stopped their thickening and consequently had more meat per oyster. Different studies on the populations of dogwhelks in the North Sea showed a clear recovery from '86 to '94.
Waldock felt that the data from these tests verifies that the ban on TBT led to clear environmental benefits. He also pointed out that another benthic study reported a rise
in species diversity during the same time period for mollusks, crustaceans, and polycheates. Waldock admitted that the benthic surveys do not prove that the TBT ban
was a direct cause of the rise in species diversity. Future tests need to be performed to see if the recent TBT ban as suggested by the
Global Antifoulants Treaty has any clear environmental benefits. Waldock felt such studies should occur in shipping lanes, drydocks and yards. He hopes for more studies
on species diversity and its relation to TBT as well.
Kiyoshi Shibata
, National Maritime Research Institute of Japan – Inspection Technique
of TBT Containing Antifouling Paints
Email: kyshiba@nmri.go.jp In order for the Global Antifoulant Treaty to be effective, ship inspectors must be able to determine quickly whether or not a ship has been using TBT on its hull. Shibata
discussed procedures developed in Japan to test a ship's hull for TBT while the vessel is being dry-docked.The 3-step process outlined by Shibata was:
- Take a small sample via abrasive paper. It is important to take a small enough sample to avoid damaging the hull coating. Shibata uses a very small sampling disc
on the end of a rotary drill that removes micrometers off the hull surface. Shibata warned that the sample point must be dry for testing (hence a dry-dock procedure).
- First stage analysis by X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF). The XRF can do a very rapid 5-minute test to determine if the sample contains any tin. Since XRF can only test
for tin and cannot determine organotin, positive results are sent to step 3 for further testing. If the XRF shows negative than there cannot be any organotin and the vessel is not leaching TBT.
- Second stage analysis by Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer – GC/MS is a lengthy and expensive process but it is currently the only means to accurately
measure for organotin such as TBT. GC/MS testing will be able to determine if the vessel has complied according to the TBT ban.
More reporting ... |
