Ban on copper based antifouling.

[Hydrozoan]

Does Coppercoat fall in to the category of "copper based" antifouling?

probably not because it's non leeching. Depends on the wording I guess.

The Coppercoat website itself describes it as "... the strongest copper based anti-fouling available" (http://coppercoat.com/coppercoat-info).

But I agree that the wording of any regulation would be the over-riding factor. The US list of products to be re-evaluated is here: http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/registration/reevaluation/chemicals/afplistofproducts.pdf.


Copper in contact with seawater will always leach to some extent, unless the free Cu2+ ion concentration in the water (which is typically much lower than the total dissolved copper concentration – see #11) exceeds that permitted by the solubility product of the relevant copper corrosion product (copper oxide or whatever) on the metal's surface. It would take a while to get the data and do the calculations, but I would be surprised if that is often the case, even in coastal waters (where copper levels are higher than offshore); for one thing, copper complexes very readily with dissolved organic substances, and that will tend to keep free Cu2+ ion concentrations low.


As far as I can see from just a quick search (so please be warned, it may be wrong or out of date) the California Toxics Rule (CTR) and proposed UK Water Framework Directive (WFD) regulatory levels of concern are not very markedly different, though the proposed UK approach allows higher concentrations of copper in waters of higher Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC):

California Toxics Rule saltwater criterion continuous concentration (CCC) = 3.1 ug dissolved Cu/l.
(http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/doclib/Documents/ut_irwp_PEIR_Appendix_C_1_California_Toxics.pdf)

Proposed UK reference predicted no effect concentration (PNEC) for saltwater = 2.64 μg dissolved Cu /l
Proposed UK site specific PNEC = 2.64 + (2.677 x ((0.5 x DOC) – 0.5)) ug dissolved Cu/l (DOC is Dissolved Organic Carbon in mg/l)
(http://www.wfduk.org/sites/default/files/Media/Copper saltwater - UKTAG.pdf)

The UK document also reports an indicative compliance assessment, which indicated that about 9.5% (6 out of 63) of the UK estuary sites assessed might “fail” against the proposed site-specific PNEC, but noted that the “failures” were relatively marginal.


It’s a long while since I was actively involved in heavy metal chemistry and standards, and it would be good if anyone can provide more accurate or up-to-date information - the UK document was ‘for consultation’ in relation to WFD implementation, and is dated 2012.

 

[Gymnopedie]

Five years ago I sailed in the Baltic. Towards the end of the season a chance conversation with a Swede confirmed that his nation regards itself as the environmental police force for the world and that copper based antifouling is unlawful.

A few dats later I watched the end-of-season haul out in a smallish marina. At a guesstimate about two-thirds of the hulls sported Coppercoat!

 

[macd]

Five years ago I sailed in the Baltic. Towards the end of the season a chance conversation with a Swede confirmed that his nation regards itself as the environmental police force for the world and that copper based antifouling is unlawful.

A few dats later I watched the end-of-season haul out in a smallish marina. At a guesstimate about two-thirds of the hulls sported Coppercoat!

I'd imagine that any reasoned legislation (if there is such a thing) would concern itself with the amount of copper that leached out. My understanding is that this is high in the case of a copper-based eroding antifoul, very low in the case of systems such as Coppercoat. If I remember correctly, Coppercoat received US Coastguard approval not so long ago, largely on this basis. I'm happy to be corrected by wiser minds on any of this.

 

[langstonelayabout]

Fine. Ban the stuff (My coppercoat is NFG anyway)

Can we have TBT back now please?

 

[Hydrozoan]

I'd imagine that any reasoned legislation (if there is such a thing) would concern itself with the amount of copper that leached out. My understanding is that this is high in the case of a copper-based eroding antifoul, very low in the case of systems such as Coppercoat. If I remember correctly, Coppercoat received US Coastguard approval not so long ago, largely on this basis. I'm happy to be corrected by wiser minds on any of this.

Yes, I couldn't see anything that looked to me like Coppercoat on the US product re-evaluation list - but as some of US product names are not familiar to me, I'm ready to be corrected. My point was only that it is unlikely to be totally non-leaching as had been suggested.

As to reasoned regulation, the UK long argued in Europe for quality standards that apply in the environment (rather than, for example, universal industrial discharge limits that took no account of the dilution the discharges received). When such environmental standards are exceeded, inputs have to be examined and appropriate control measures taken (in the light of cost and other factors) to correct the exceedance. It's quite logical, and if I read it correctly the US action followed the finding that about 30% of the sites in the area had Cu concentrations exceeding their environmental quality standard. From the indicative compliance assessment in the UK to which I linked, it would seem that only about 10% of UK estuary sites assessed might breach our proposed site-specific Cu standard.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

I have 2 USAF units and a scrubber on board.
Works well for me

I'm sure that in this litigious age you can be sued for calling her a scrubber

 

[Birdseye]

Five years ago I sailed in the Baltic. Towards the end of the season a chance conversation with a Swede confirmed that his nation regards itself as the environmental police force for the world and that copper based antifouling is unlawful.

A few dats later I watched the end-of-season haul out in a smallish marina. At a guesstimate about two-thirds of the hulls sported Coppercoat!

Met a nwely retired swedish gynaecologist once , stopping off on the UK south coast at the start of his solo RTW trip. He had had problems of ineffective antifoul beinbg the only stuff he could get back home so he got round it by mixing in a kilo of tetracycline antibiotics countesy of the swedish health system. It certainly seemed to be working.

 

[Elessar]

Does Coppercoat fall in to the category of "copper based" antifouling?

Further to my earlier reply.....

On January 12, 2012, COPPERCOAT received approval from the California EPA, Department of Pesticide Regulation for the use of COPPERCOAT in the state of California effective January 1, 2012. (California EPA Reg. No. 85396-1-AA)

 

[Hydrozoan]

... if I read it correctly the US action followed the finding that about 30% of the sites in the area had Cu concentrations exceeding their environmental quality standard. ...

Checking again here http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/registration/reevaluation/chemicals/antifoulant_paints.htm I see that more than 50% of samples taken from salt and brackish water marinas exceeded the CTR chronic water quality standard (my recollection of about 30% applied to the higher acute standard).

 

[KAL]

That's OK then, plenty of time to buy in a few extra 20L drums of Seaforce 30.

Just lifted ours for the winter. Used 'the strongest anti foul allowed' (according to the manufacturer). Had a little bit of seaforce 30 left over from previous year, so put on leading edges, cradle patches, etc., just befor launch.

I have never seen so many barnacles on our boat after lifting. However, absolutely ZERO on the seaforce covered areas.

How ridiculous that we are no longer allowed to buy it.

Immaterial for us, as we are blasting off in preparation for coppercoating. Still, it's proof that Jotun Seaforce 30 is the very best antifoul I ever used, and would have continued, had the loonies in Brussels not banned it for the likes of me. (No, I'm not a UKIP candidate...). Amazing stuff.

 

[GrahamM376]

I have never seen so many barnacles on our boat after lifting. However, absolutely ZERO on the seaforce covered areas.

How ridiculous that we are no longer allowed to buy it.

Immaterial for us, as we are blasting off in preparation for coppercoating. Still, it's proof that Jotun Seaforce 30 is the very best antifoul I ever used, and would have continued, had the loonies in Brussels not banned it for the likes of me. (No, I'm not a UKIP candidate...). Amazing stuff.

Has legislation banned it or, are Jotun trying to push their leisure brands by restricting Seaforce sales to commercial vessels in UK? The datasheet has always said "for professional use only" but doesn't mention any restriction on types of vessel and it's still listed as suitable for grp.

Last time I was at their depot over here (this year) they just handed it over as usual and were trying to persuade me to use and sell their other products such as epoxy and paints, around the Algarve. Trade discounts are very attractive but I don't have storage facilities or interest in setting up a retail business. Anyway, I'll be there again after the Christmas break so will see what happens.