Coatings World - December 2012

Domestic Marine
Coating Regulations:

A Year in Review

Marie Hobson, Counsel, ACA

Marine coatings, specifically antifouling coatings, are specially designed for exposure to the marine environ- ment. Antifouling coatings are most typically applied to commercial and military ships, fixed and floating structures, such as offshore oil rigs, and recreational boats and yachts, just to mention a few. The requirements for marine coating systems carry a tall order, including the protection of vessels and structures in harsh and diverse environmental conditions (saltwater immersion, extreme temperatures, ultraviolet radiation exposure, humidity, physical impact from wave action, biological fouling [barnacles], etc.). Marine coatings are also expected to perform under extreme operating conditions (chemical tank lining, high-temperature surfaces, physical and mechanical durability of work surfaces, etc.). In addition to the physical demands on the coatings, marine coatings must comply with evolving health, safety, and environmental regulations. This article focuses on the ever changing regulatory landscape and provides a “year in review” for domestic marine coatings regulations.

California led the regulatory charge this past year by proposing a ban on copper in pleasure craft coatings (Senate Bill 623), while simultaneously initiating a re-evaluation of copper as an approved biocide in antifouling coatings (Department of Pesticide Regulations). In September 2011, the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) released a draft proposal to control biofouling on ships hulls entering California ports. In addition to the regulations coming out of California, this article will also briefly discuss the impact of the Pleasure Craft Control Technique Guidelines (CTG ), as well as the draft 2013 vessel general permit (VGP) and the new small vessel general permit (sVGP).

SB 623

California Senate Bill 623 proposed to ban the use of copper in
antifouling paint for use on pleasure craft. The bill was spon-
sored by Senator Christine Kehoe (D) and co-sponsored by the
Port of San Diego and the San Diego Coast Keeper. Industry had
urged proponents, who had acknowledged the litany of technical
issues surrounding the measure — including questions of what
an alternative product would be like, how much would it cost,
and if it would even work as well as copper-based antifouling
coatings — to study the issue further and make decisions based
on scientific evidence and technological feasibility. The ques-
tion “Will it work as well?” is one that should be of primary
concern to lawmakers and regulators in California and beyond;
they rightly fear that the risks of invasive species will increase
if the alternatives are not as effective. SB 623 was dropped by
Senator Kehoe on May 30, 2012 after ACA submitted a letter
pointing out new evidence that would soon come to light which
could change how copper-impaired waters are defined, specifi-
cally EPA’s review of the Biotic Ligand Model (BLM) for marine
waters and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation’s
(DPR) re-evaluation of copper as an approved biocide in anti-
fouling paints. Although the bill was dropped by Senator Kehoe,
a similar bill will likely be introduced in the 2013 legislative
cycle.

Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) The use of copper in antifouling paints has been targeted by many groups as contributing to adverse water conditions in certain California marinas. In March of last year, manufacturers with affected registrations received a data request from California DPR titled, “Clarification of Leach Rate Determination, Notice of Additional Data Requirements and Meeting Regarding the Reevaluation of Copper Based Anti-fouling Paint Pesticides.” The data requirement called for, among other things, a protocol to accurately determine the impact underwater hull cleaning has on overall copper release from antifouling paint. ACA submitted the “In Water Hull Cleaning and Passive Leaching Study Protocol” to DPR and the study protocol was approved by DPR in June of this year. The study is being conducted by SPAWAR (Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command), a subgroup of the U.S. Navy, and reviewed by a third party — Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego. The results of this study and the mitigation strategies developed by DPR will not just determine the course for anti-fouling coatings in California, but will likely have global implications.