CQD Journal for the Maritime Environment Industry Volume 3, #4 - August 1997, Copyright 1995 Edward M. Miller Associates, Inc.

EPA Reports on TBT-tin based bottom paint

Legislation trends on de-ballasting

Dredge Bites

EPA reports on TBT-tin based bottom paint-

TBT (tributylin) and antifouling boat bottom paint are back in the news.

Back in November 1995 we reported on TBT-tin vs. tin free antifouling paints (see CQD issue volume 1, #2). At that time the U.S. and Japan were the only countries with aggressive legislation limiting the use of TBT-tin based boat bottom paints.  Our article described the chemistry involved in TBT-tin based paint and some of the marine environmental damage it has been proven to elicit.  Most of the detrimental effects from TBT-tin are directed upon shellfish and marine invertebrates.

Once again this pesky marine environmental topic has resurfaced.  In May and August the U.S. EPA issued reports to Congress regarding new findings on TBT in the water column.  The May report details the status of monitoring efforts for TBT based paints.  It highlights some positive environmental trends as well as additional legislation which may be proposed on the domestic and international fronts.  The August report announces new ambient water quality criteria for TBT.

The EPA's report shows that the EPA and the Navy document reduced levels of TBT in the water column of U.S. ports.  Unfortunately, the EPA feels the levels are still too high.  The EPA believes "the continued hazard TBT poses is tied to remaining domestic use and to the use of TBT on ocean-going vessels which are painted overseas which travel to American ports."

Proposals for a global ban on TBT are in the discussion phases between the EPA and the International Maritime Organization.  They are also reviewing TBT risk assessment and additional restrictions on domestic use ( EPA press release June 20, 1997).

The EPA's ambient water quality report released in the Federal Register on August 7 indicates TBT water levels should not exceed the following concentrations more than once over a 3 yr. period.

• For fresh water species the 4 day average concentration of TBT should not exceed 0.063 mg/L and the 1 hr. average concentration should not exceed 0.46mg/L.
• For salt water species the 4 day average concentration of TBT should not exceed 0.010 mg/L and the 1 hr. average concentration should not exceed 0.37 mg/L.

Return to Top of Page

Legislation trends on de-ballasting

In October of 1996 President Clinton signed in to law the National Invasive Species Act (NISA).  We outlined major provisions of the act in CQD issue volume 2, #5 and some of the programs currently available for controlling nuisance species in ballast water in CQD  issue volume 3, #2 .  NISA will hopefully reduce the influence of nonindigenous species into the waters and ports of the U.S.  Among other provisions NISA mandates regulations to prevent introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species into the Great Lakes through ballast water, mandates voluntary guidelines for the rest of U.S. waters and authorizes appropriations for various research programs involved in ballast water management.

Support for NISA is strong among environmentalists and the shipping industries.  There is concern however that a disturbing legislative trend is developing.  States governments are beginning to set up measures to supersede NISA and create individual enforcement programs.  Numerous local rules and regulations could very well weaken NISA's efforts to establish a nationwide program to combat invasive species.

One severe measure has been proposed in the state of Connecticut.  Representative Demarinis and others have introduced state Bill 5376 which, if passed, will entirely ban de-ballasting of pan-oceanic ships in the ports of Connecticut.  Ships calling Connecticut ports would universally be prohibited from pumping out their ballast water.  The bill's sponsors believe this austere measure will protect Connecticut's harbors from non-indigenous species.

Legislation such as Bill 5376 will severely affect local ports.  The concept of totally banning deballasting can force many shipping firms to cease calling at such ports entirely.  Port industries dependent on shipping could be ruined.

It is also likely that such measures would not be truly effective in protecting Connecticut's harbors.  To halt nuisance species invasion, whole geographic areas need to be clear of the aliens.  Once introduced, invaders can travel up and down areas of similar biotic environment.  To ban de-ballasting in one small area is foolish.  Ship's ballast water is not the only vector of introduction.

A more comprehensive strategy can be found in the Great Lakes Carriers Association's Management Plan to halt the Ruffe invasion in the Great Lakes.  They have brought together voluntary support from harbors all over the Great Lakes to work together to combat further spread of this exotic fish.  Entire geographic areas are cooperating through intelligently managed ballast programs, public education programs and funded research.  The success of the program since 1995 is a testament to the value of an overall management plan instead of piecemeal ad hoc regulations.

The State of Michigan in its recent Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species State Management Plan specifically suggested against the adoption of specific new laws or regulations or even modifications to existing controls.  Other states and experts also agree that well defined, well funded national and international plans are the keys to success.  They look to NISA to provide the national plan and to the IMO to establish an international plan .

In the battle against exotic species invasion a mix of many local regulations makes it impossible for good national legislation to be effective.  For NISA and international environmental efforts to be effective we need laws, individuals and industries to work together to devise economical and innovative solutions to a worldwide problem.

Return to Top of Page

Dredge Bites - 2 brief stories regarding dredging

Innovative Disposal Options -

Construction on the NY/NJ PA's Newark Bay Confined Disposal Facility looks to be proceeding right on track for a fall opening.  The facility will be an in-water pit in the bottom of Newark Bay and will serve as a repository for Category II and Category III dredge sediments.  It will eventually be capped with Category I sediment or clean sand.

The Port Authority will make available an outreach program to all potential users in the area.  The information packet will include guidance on operations, restrictions, permit requirements, etc.  The opening of the pits will be sorely needed in light of the final closing of the off-shore Mud Dump Site. 

PA mines need NY/NJ harbor's sediment
An innovative answer to the long term disposal problems of NY/NJ harbor mud may well come from its neighbor state, PA.  It seems abandoned coal mines in PA are in need of huge quantities of sediment to be used in cleaning up and remediating the mines.

The mine sites are an environmental hazard primarily due to acidic water effluents which flow from the mines into streams and groundwater.  Category II and III dredge sediments could be solidified or remediated and then used to close the mines.  Permits for a field test have been approved for 500,000 yd³ of material in Penfield, PA

Return to Top of Page

CQD Journal for the Maritime Environment Industry is published by E.M. Miller Associates, Inc., Florham Park, NJ.  www.cqdjournal.com   All rights reserved.  Copyright 1999.

Legal Disclaimers and Policy Statements

This page last updated by Miller Associates: Thursday, June 05, 2003