EPA seeks public input into review of marine paints

[Guest]

Media release

24 January 2013

EPA seeks public input into review of marine paints

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) is asking the public to have its say in a review of a group of paints used to protect boats from the unwanted build-up of aquatic plants and animals.

The EPA is reviewing antifouling paints following the release of significant new information by other international regulators about the harmful effects they have on both aquatic and human health.

Acting Applications and Assessment Manager, Johanne Spring, says the EPA’s preliminary research shows that the risks posed by some of these paints may be managed by stricter controls being placed on their use.

“However, our research also shows that the risks to human and environmental health from some of these paints may be so significant that they should no longer be permitted for use in New Zealand.”

Antifouling paints are applied to the surfaces of boats, nets and other submerged surfaces and slowly release chemicals into the water to prevent the build-up of aquatic pests, such as plants and algae.

Ms Spring says that public submissions are a crucial part of the reassessment process.

“Antifouling paints provide a number of benefits to New Zealand’s marine industry and biosecurity. But they can also have negative effects on the health of our marine life and of the people that use them.

“To make sure that the outcome of this reassessment is one that is best for New Zealand, we are encouraging the public to have their say on the future use of antifouling paints,” she says.

Ms Spring says that the EPA carried out a comprehensive preliminary assessment and consulted with representatives from the paint manufacturing industry, regional councils and Māori, as well as marine operators and other users across New Zealand.

“However, information from the public about the everyday use of antifouling paints, including their benefits, will be vital in helping the decision makers reach the best conclusion,” says Ms Spring.

The EPA will also be receiving advice on the suitability of the current hazard classifications of the antifouling paints being reassessed. This advice, which may affect the outcome of the EPA’s reassessment, is due to be completed and made publicly available by the end of February 2013.

The public have until Thursday 7 March 2013 to make a submission on the reassessment. A public hearing will be in mid- April, after which an expert decision-making committee will consider the application, public submissions and any other information it receives as part of the reassessment process.

The Committee’s final decision on the reassessment is expected to be released in May 2013.

[Ends]

 

Additional information

The EPA is responsible for regulating hazardous substances and new organisms under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996. Under the Act the EPA’s Chief Executive can request that approved substances are reassessed.

The EPA is reassessing these substances as a group for the following reasons:

• Reassessing substances with similar effects will ensure that if one substance is substituted for another, the risks are properly understood and managed.

• Reassessing substances individually may lead to a gradual decrease in available products. A group reassessment gives greater certainty to industry and government agencies about the availability of products in the future, helping to direct research and development efforts towards alternative long-term solutions to control biofouling.

• An integrated approach will ensure consistent and effective controls to manage risks are put in place.

• It enables a more efficient use of industry and EPA resources, whilst still meeting the needs of industry, providing tools for aiding biosecurity and protecting the health and safety of people and the environment.

The EPA uses a hazard classification system that describes the hazards of each substance. Depending on the substance’s classification, specific controls on their use are applied, such as ones controlling how the paint should be stored. Therefore any changes to the hazard classifications of antifouling paints may lead to a change to the controls that are currently in place.

The advice regarding the current hazard classifications will be available on the EPA’s website by the end of February 2013.

An expert decision-making committee of the EPA will make its decision after considering the application, any submissions received, an evaluation and review report put together by the EPA, as well as any further information that it may receive during the consultation process.

It will also consider the controls that can be placed on a substance, the positive and adverse effects of the substance, and the likely effects on the environment, economy and communities if the substance becomes unavailable.

The application and submission forms can be found on the EPA’s website at: www.epa.govt.nz/search-databases/Pages/ ... APP201051#.

[Steve Pope 243]

Re the "comprehensive" preliminary consultation with the paint industry, Maori, marine operators, regional councils and other "users?" whoever they may be.

Has anyone on this list been involved in this discussion? Is it possible that without "Ogre" finding and posting this here it would have be missed by most folk with a interest in the process and eventual outcome.

Reading between the lines it appears that he EPA has no interest in finding a better solution to the fouling problem, but is definitely interested in regulating / stopping any perceived dangers to aquatic creatures and the public. One wonders what/who is the driving force behind this, is it one or two bureaucrats with a personal axe to grind, or perhaps too much time on their hands looking to justify their existence?

[Farrari 4]

Here is a copy of the executive summary from the "Economic analysis to support the reassessment of antifouling paints - Final - 14 December 2012". The review is more than a review of marine paints as it also covers location of painting and paint handling.

 

Here are some interesting comments.

"This would result in small boat owners facing increases in costs of between 100% and 400% of their current paint costs"

"It is likely that the level of costs will be too great for a number of small boat yards and that there will be some consolidation of where boat maintenance and painting takes place. This will limit choice for small boat owners."

 

Executive Summary

Proposed Regulations

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) is reassessing all biocides used as active ingredients in antifouling paints imported to, manufactured and used in New Zealand. Following a preliminary risk assessment it is considering a number of options for which it has sought public comment.

 

The options include:

a. Phasing out the use in New Zealand of antifouling paints containing:

a) chlorothalonil;

diuron;

c) irgarol; and

d) ziram;

and/or

b. introducing additional controls to reduce risks to:

a) operators;

bystanders; and

c) the environment.

 

Bans on Individual Paints

Paints proposed to be banned are those that have high risk quotients for human health or ecotoxicological risks. The bans on paints will have little total impact on costs. There appear to be substitutes available in all markets, allowing consumers to switch products. The impacts will fall mainly on the producers and importers of the products proposed to be banned; this is particularly Awlcraft currently. However, phasing in the ban over time would enable new formulations to be developed allowing firms to maintain market share.

 

Improvements to the Location of Painting

Improvements to the location of painting include sealing hard stands, isolation of painting via enclosure behind fences (or in full encapsulation) and collection and

disposal of wastes. All of these measures would be expected to yield benefits, although many are being undertaken anyway as a result of requirements imposed by local authorities and other government departments. This means that the costs directly attributable to EPA regulations for antifouling paint may be limited; but it might also suggest that the regulations are unnecessary. Several industry members noted that introducing regulations specifically for antifouling paint was somewhat inequitable; it might also be inefficient. Addressing issues more generically through regulations that tackled all sources of pollution to air or water, and all substances, in a consistent way would reduce the regulatory costs while addressing these equity issues.

That said, the measures proposed appear to be accepted by most as inevitable and, while in some cases resulting in significant costs, as being reasonable requirements to protect the marine environment. It is likely that the level of costs will be too great for a number of small boat yards and that there will be some consolidation of where boat maintenance and painting takes place. This will limit choice for small boat owners.

 

Improvements to Paint Handling

Improvements to paint handling include requirements for approved handlers and PPE requirements. The latter appears to be a relatively low cost measure, with DIY stores selling equipment that could improve safety. The requirement for approved handlers could have a significant impact on activity if it effectively stopped DIY painting. This would result in small boat owners facing increases in costs of between 100% and 400% of their current paint costs, although the perceived impacts will depend on how they value their time. There will be ways in which these costs might be minimised, including through supervision by marinas, eg checking that people are using adequate PPE and using spray equipment under the right weather conditions. These costs would need to be covered via increases in haul-out charges.

 

 

[banaari 27]

Anyone know if there's been any progress on the catalytic A/F that was supposed to produce hydrogen peroxide when exposed to water and UV light?

[DrWatson 372]

I've been reading through this:

 

Application for the Reassessment of a Group

of Hazardous Substances APP201051

 

And the thing that strikes me initially, is that although it is a very pretty document, it does seem, at first glance, to be written in a style which is assuming and patronising and frightfully lacking in scientific rigor. There are many stated assumptions, and many unreferenced claims. There are many instances of data not being available and so "reasonable worst case" seems to be the standard situation of choice to determine risk. That our future choices may be based upon some regulators guesswork is a concern

 

I'm all for saving the environment, but I'm concerned at the quality of this potentially regulation changing document.

 

Now I'll have to read the whole thing in detail, and unfortunately it's unlikely I'll find the time to do before the deadline for submissions.

 

Do we have a scientific volunteer who may be able to do this for us?

 

DrW

[grant 40]

I posted the link to the consultation stuff on here sometime last year. I think this is might be the third time this has come up asking for comments so its not like they are trying to hide the process.

 

I can try and find the technical document again if anyone wants to go through it,EPA website.

[DrWatson 372]

http://www.epa.govt.nz/search-databases ... 2012.01.22).pdf

 

This is the application document.

 

I know it's not been hidden, but still, making recommendations based on assumptions is somewhat poor form.

 

it's kind of "Where no data exists let's legislate to protect us from our fear"

[Grinna 2]

While there is much concern about diuron and irgarol in the marine environment (these are "co-biocides" by the way ... chemicals that help control slime growth) our environmental sampling has not turned up anything more than very very low concentrations in some parts of some marinas. That is to say, that the concerns about co-biocides are mostly academic rather than real world issues.

[DrWatson 372]

so is that data cited in this report?

 

i'm guessing not...

[Grinna 2]

I'm guessing not either. There is actually quite a bit of data from established marinas in terms of sediment quality and contaminant concentrations ... particularly with regard to sediment disturbanceresulting from dredging and disposal. I highly doubt that data is being used as part of the review because it's all submitted to Regional Councils or Maritime NZ in relation to specific resource consents, gets ticked off somebody's list and sits in individual files as grey literature. Most Council staff haven't been there long enough to know what's held on file and nobody talks to anyone else about these issues .... even within the same organisation, let alone between organisations.

 

The most frustrating thing about my work is that so much of it disappears into a black hole never to be seen or used again.

[DrWatson 372]

shame really,

 

unless you can get is published or put it on the web, a lot of that data gets lost

 

years and years of data sitting on my hard drives that will never be published.

[shanson 0]

shame really,

 

unless you can get is published or put it on the web, a lot of that data gets lost

 

years and years of data sitting on my hard drives that will never be published.

 

Ever heard of Wikileaks?

 

Thats what it's there for!

 

SHANE

[Steve Pope 243]

California was considering having copper based antifouling banned but have since backed away from doing so. I wonder if our local EPA folk are aware of this??