THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, May 19, 1995 TAG: 9505190515
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY SCOTT HARPER, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: Long : 105 lines
In 1988, Virginia adopted some of the toughest limits on TBT, a highly toxic boat paint regulated across the globe as a threat to aquatic life. But now, the state wants to drop the limits altogether, saying they are too hard to enforce.
The proposal is aimed at relieving big shipyards in Hampton Roads from expensive monitoring programs that give inconclusive results, said Frank Daniel, regional director of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
Some environmentalists and scientists are calling the move a dangerous backslide on a proven ecological threat.
``It's insane, it's irrational,'' fumed Roy A. Hoagland, staff attorney for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in Richmond, who has called for a public hearing on the proposed reversal.
TBT, short for tributyltin, is a tin-based antifoulant used since the 1970s to keep boats free of barnacles and other pests. But studies have shown that TBT, even in minute doses, can harm oysters, clams, shellfish and snails.
Ray Alden, director of the Applied Marine Research Lab at Old Dominion University, said a recent study at his lab also found that TBT stopped some baby fish from developing tails. The fish could swim only in circles.
``Obviously, the potential impacts (of TBT) are there,'' Alden said this week. ``We're finding a lot of deformities in fish around the shipyards.''
Earlier this month, state environmental regulators quietly recommended that TBT limits be scrapped after conducting an internal review of their effectiveness at local shipyards, officials said.
The Bay foundation became aware of the proposed new policy when staff noticed that a renewed water-discharge permit for Norshipco in Norfolk no longer included any TBT limits.
``They're making a fundamental departure in policy on their own, with no public input,'' Hoagland said.
The Virginia Water Control Board passed some of the strictest limits in the country seven years ago. Through water-discharge permits, the state dictates how much TBT can legally enter local waters from marinas and boatyards - just 1 part per trillion in saltwater and 26 parts per trillion in freshwater.
State law prohibits TBT paints on most pleasure boats shorter than 82 feet. Aluminum boats still can use TBT, but only if they release into the water less than 5 micrograms per square centimeter a day.
The limits, hailed by environmentalists but criticized by shipyards, came after much national pressure and two state studies showing that TBT, even in minute doses, may harm oysters, clams, shellfish and snails.
While not disputing TBT's toxicity, state officials said the limits written into water permits are too minuscule to be monitored. With no bona fide way to tell if shipyards are complying with the law, enforcement is nearly impossible, Daniel said.
Accordingly, there has not been a recorded TBT violation in Virginia, said Chuck Epes, a state environmental spokesman in Richmond.
``It just didn't make much sense to me to have something we couldn't even detect,'' Daniel said, recalling a recent review of TBT permit limits that led to the state proposal to simply scrap them.
Bob Goode, state supervisor of water permits, explained that ``about eight'' shipyards in Hampton Roads that continue to use TBT still will be required to check receiving waters for TBT levels.
They also must employ technology to catch TBT-tainted paint chips that workers sandblast from boats during maintenance work.
The difference, Goode and others explained, is that there would be no specific limit on what could escape from a work site.
Nearly all of the shipyards affected are on the Elizabeth River, which is regarded as one of the most toxic waterways on the East Coast. But it was Newport News Shipbuilding that persuaded the state to review TBT limits, Daniel said.
Once the state agreed to pull limits for Newport News Shipbuilding, it was only fair that other shipyards that also use TBT in some contract work receive the same exemption, Daniel said.
Mike Hatfield, a spokesman for the huge Newport News facility, played down the proposed change.
``We have lived in the past well under the limits,'' Hatfield said. ``But yes, we'd have an easier time with our operations if those were to change.''
TBT remains a cheap and extremely effective antifoulant, mostly because of its intense toxicity. Alternatives, such as copper-based paints, are not quite as toxic but are not as efficient at keeping pests at bay.
One problem is that Hampton Roads shipyards do business with countries that still desire TBT paints on their boats. But with strict limits in Virginia, Daniel said, the state is hurting local yards from attracting more international vessels that want TBT paint.
England, France, Germany and Japan are among the countries that have tightly controlled the chemical for years. But other countries with developing fleets have shied away from tough regulations, mostly because the cost of alternatives is too high.
Daniel could not say how much business is being lost but noted, ``the shipyards already are having trouble, so this (strict limits) certainly isn't helping.''
As for new business opportunities, Hatfield estimated the new limits ``would not have any significant impact on us.''
ODU's Alden, a marine biologist who has studied toxics in the Elizabeth River, said the limits have improved water quality somewhat, although recent surveys still show high readings of TBT in some streams.
``Two years ago, levels had dropped significantly compared to the 1980s,'' Alden said. ``It seems the limits are doing their job.''
KEYWORDS: WATER POLLUTION by CNB