Shipping companies and others voiced significant distress at the Interagency Working Group public meeting on Antifouling Paints for Ships, May 5th in
Washington DC. Organized by US Coast Guard liaison LTJG Christopher Boes and EPA's Bryan Wood-Thomas, the meeting sought opinions on the US position regarding a pending worldwide ban on ship paints containing
the biocide TBT or tributyltin.Shipping representatives from Sea-Land, American Ship Management, the American
Shipbuilding Association and others raised concerns about the lack of an effective alternative to TBT based antifouling paint. Last November a working group of the International Maritime Organization, chaired by US delegate
Bryan Wood-Thomas, called for a complete ban on application of TBT products by 1/1/03. The Washington meeting was one of the few chances for US interested parties to express their voices
publicly before the next IMO working group session at the end of June.
Sea-Land Services Inc. and American Ship Management own and/or operate large US
merchant fleets. Each company produced evidence showing non-TBT based paint yields poor results, contradictory to manufacturers' claims. Sea-Land estimates
additional cleaning costs due to excessive fouling from non-TBT paints at about $45,000 per vessel. Increased fuel costs are estimated at about $60,000 to $90,000
per vessel when TBT based paint is not applied. Both companies urged the US delegation to re-examine the reasons and dates for the ban.
Other shipping industry representatives suggested the target date of January 1, 2003
is premature. They argued that none of the current TBT-alternative ship hull paints meet strict US air emission standards. Shipping representatives suggest EPA approved
non-TBT alternative paints will not be available until August of 2007. Their estimate is based on the government's official application review time of 540 days for biocides and other pesticides.
Bryan Wood-Thomas stated he was "sensitive" to the shipping industry's concerns. However, the US delegation has already submitted its issue paper for the next IMO
meeting. This was done before the public meeting requesting industry input.
Sally Lenz of Oceans Advocate expressed outrage that the US delegation submitted their paper prior to getting stakeholder input.
Also speaking at the meeting was Dr. Stewart Evans, TBT expert from Dove Marine Laboratory. His group has been monitoring TBT impacted species since 1986. He
stated effected species throughout the globe have shown significant population recovery since worldwide limitations on TBT went into effect in the late 80's. Evans
insists current regulations banning TBT on pleasure craft (vessels under 25 m) are highly effective. He urged the delegation to consider the overwhelming evidence of
peer reviewed reports before enacting a full TBT ban. Evans and other scientists believe a ban by 2003 is premature and should be delayed until alternative
antifoulants, which perform as well as TBT-based coatings on environmental and economic grounds, are available.
The 43rd session of the Marine Environmental Protection Committee of IMO will be
meeting in London the last week of June 1999 to continue debate on TBT and other marine environment related issues
