Visit our Popular Forums

hellosailor · 11-11-2006, 12:10

As I understand them, there are US-EPA and state regulations pretty much banning the discharge of any and all toxins, poisons, and insecticides in US waters. We used to joke about the way that these regulations COULD even be used to ban SCUBA diving, since we "discharge" our spent air into the water. In the same way, scrubbing anything toxic off your boat--even incidentally--would still be an illegal discharge.

Do I know anyone who has had a problem with this? No.

That still doesn't change the fact that when laws ban "any" discharge, and what we are doing, traditional or not, is causing a "discharge"... Then all it takes is one more facist in office to cause a crisis.

Heck, I know a *brewing* supplier, who sold sterilant for home brewing equipment (and nothing exotic, just the routine products used for decades) who got shut down for selling "insecticides" without a license, because someone in Homeland Security traced shipments of what are now reclassified as "insecticides" because they kill MICROBES and FUNGUS.

Sure, he re-opened. After court and lawyers and promising not to advertise that product as being able to sterilize things or some such folderoll.

You scrub off paint, I pour in Chlorox. All the same from the bureaucrats point of view.

senormechanico · 11-11-2006, 14:55

I don't pressure wash or scrub my paint while the boat's in the water, I wait for the tide to go down.

hellosailor · 11-11-2006, 15:24

Nifty way to park.<G>

**Alan Wheeler** · 11-11-2006, 16:06

Now that is cool:-)

fstbttms · 11-11-2006, 18:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Wheeler

Fstbttms, first of all, pull your head in. I did not accuse you of anything and there was no need to respond in the way you did. We (and I say this as Admin and not from the fact it was directed at me) do not want to see personal attacks on this board thank-you. ??

I don't believe I "attacked" you in any way. However you certainly made a snide remark directed (at least in part) at me. And I didn't appreciate that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Wheeler

Gord posted an article that stated the agency would prosecute offenders, so there must be some form of legality implied. I don't care if it was for Washington or where, I have no idea how your laws work in your country and you need to remember this is not an American only Board. Participants are from all over the world. My comment was in general, if it is illegal, then surely it is illegal, no matter how many flaunt YOUR law. Here in NZ, if something like that was published in Wellington, (Our capital, Aint Washington yours??) it would be legal Nation wide.??

1.- The article is specific to the cleaning of ablative paints ONLY. Not hull cleaning in general. As I have mentioned several times in this thread (and apparently have to again), the state of Washington does restrict the cleaning of ablative paints. This is not new information.
2.- Washington D.C. is this nation's capital. You have mistaken it for Washington state, which is a separate administrative district 3000 miles away on the west coast of the American continent. The laws and regulations of that state are not applicable nationwide.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Wheeler

I am not/was not suggesting anything personal against you, I was making a general lanket comment based on what some authority has placed on a piece of paper. Maybe it's legal, maybe it's not...

I disagree. I told you a thing, explained my expertise on the subject and gave examples of everyday use of the topic. Yet you say, "maybe that is so, but maybe it ain't." And you say it in a way that implies that what I'm doing is illegal and that I know it is illegal. Beg pardon if I take offense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Wheeler

Is it possible that the view of "hull cleaning" and the article that Gord posted are refering to two very different aspects of the job. Is it possible that the "hull cleaning" from your point of view is as simple as that. Cleaning slime and growth off the hulls, but not removing the paint it's self. Is it possible that the Article Gord posted is refering to removal of the paint in it's entirety. fstbttms, I remember you made a comment in a different thread series about some agency concerned with the copper content in the water. Is this document in relation to that perhaps??

The article and I are speaking about the same thing. No one is stripping a hull clean of paint in the water, yet the act of hull cleaning is by definition, abrasive. When an in-water cleaning event takes place, some small fraction of the anti fouling paint is invariable removed. Further, when a hull is covered in slime between cleanings, that anti fouling paint continues to leach it's biocide into the water. But it is trapped between the slime and the hull. So when the diver removes the slime, that trapped copper is now released into the water column. All this is exacerbated when the anti fouling in question is an ablative type. The US-EPA has determined that anti fouling paints and in-water cleaning of same contribute to elevated copper levels in the water column and therefore has mandated that the state of California must reduce those levels. Other states (such as Washington) have taken it upon themselves to makes steps in that direction as well. None of this implies that in-water hull cleaning is illegal, or ever will be.

**Alan Wheeler** · 11-11-2006, 19:34

Well OK Fstbttm, let me make it very clear right now, I was not intending my post as a "snide comment" nor was it intentionaly directed at you in anyway and I apologise if you read it that way. For your future knowledge of me, if I intend to direct anything at anybody, I make it very clear by addressing them with there name(handle) just as I have done in this post to you. It is too easy to have comments jumbled and people not knowing what is said to whom. So I tend to be very clear and direct if I am directing at anyone in particular.
You also and I say this to everyone included, have to be very careful how we "read" or interpret posts. Remember my english is very different to yours. I use words differently to the way you use words. I also apologise if your comment to me was not in the sense I took it for.
As you get to know me, I think you will understand I don't "talk" in the manner that my post seemingly must have come across to you. Several here that have gotten to know me will attest (gee I hope so;-) to that.

fstbttms · 11-11-2006, 20:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Wheeler

As you get to know me, I think you will understand I don't "talk" in the manner that my post seemingly must have come across to you. Several here that have gotten to know me will attest (gee I hope so;-) to that.

Alan, no worries. We all have seen how sometimes inflection and nuance and even outright meaning can be misunderstood while communicating via forum posts. As for my part, I just considered our conversation to be a spirited argument. Having spent lots of time in forums that are not nearly as civilized as this one, I have developed quite a thick skin and believe me, it would take much more than what I mistakenly thought you were dishing out to truly upset me.

fstbttms · 11-11-2006, 20:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellosailor

We used to joke about the way that these regulations COULD even be used to ban SCUBA diving, since we "discharge" our spent air into the water.

While at a RWQCB meeting in San Diego several years ago, I heard an opponent to any possible regulation concerning the use of copper-laden bottom paints say that the allowable copper-loading requirements for Selter Island Yacht Basin were so stringent that if one were to simply put a garden hose in the water there and turn on the tap, one would be in violation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellosailor

You scrub off paint, I pour in Chlorox. All the same from the bureaucrats point of view.

Your logic is flawed. At present, toxic anti foulants and in-water hull cleaning are the accepted methods of keeping boat bottoms relatively clean. Pouring poison directly into the water is not. And I challenge you to find a single government, regulatory or law enforcement agency that would support your position. I can prove that they support mine.

**GordMay** · 12-11-2006, 01:31

Perhaps I should have been more elucidative in my introduction to the linked regulatory articles; but I thought they could speak for themselves.

The mere fact that government agencies (& others) are addressing the subject of a class of anti-foulings, and their conceivable prejudicial ecological significance - suggests (to my skeptical eye) an unfavorable predisposition. A concerned environmentalist myself, I’ve never noticed many (any) cases where scientific study have led to relaxed regulation.

fstbttms · 12-11-2006, 10:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by GordMay

The mere fact that government agencies (& others) are addressing the subject of a class of anti-foulings, and their conceivable prejudicial ecological significance - suggests (to my skeptical eye) an unfavorable predisposition. A concerned environmentalist myself, I’ve never noticed many (any) cases where scientific study have led to relaxed regulation.

The regulatory agencies involved in the cuprous oxide issue are naturally predisposed towards an unfavorable position. It is their job to reduce copper in the water and boats and hull cleaning are responsible for much of it. One of the major challenges the Cal. Pro. Divers Assoc. has undertaken has been to educate individuals in those agencies about the reasons toxic anti fouling and in-water hull cleaning exist. These people are very frequently non-boaters and often have little initial understanding of the issues. Once all the stakeholders are up to speed on the realities involved, reasonable discussion can be had on how best to address the problem. Of course, this is going to mean regulation of some sort. But that's not what you were saying with your post. You were implying that in-water hull cleaning is banned or illegal, which is definitely not the case, at least in the U.S.

senormechanico · 12-11-2006, 10:57

It's been my experience that most regulatory agencies think of themselves as mini gods whose jobs are to control us for their own aggrandisement. Without going into a long story, our neighborhood (which is on a salt water canal system) ran into one of these guys just recently when it came to permitting the repair of an existing dock. GRRRRR!!!!

**GordMay** · 12-11-2006, 14:15

fstbttms:
You’re right - I’m absolutely wrong.
Nobody frowns on in-water hull cleaning (stripping), the Australians haven’t regulated it, and nobody is ever likely to.

12-11-2006, 15:12

So, has anyone been using the "Vivid" bottom paint for any length of time? I am using this on the trimaran, but have not heard from anyone who has used it long enough to have a real opinion on it's effectiveness. Since the destructive creatures vary in different areas, and different water temps, it would be good to hear from someone arond the central west coast.