Background: Antifouling Paints. Fouling refers to the growth and colonization of aquatic organisms, such as algae and barnacles, on the surfaces of vessels and structures. Fouling reduces the performance of vessels by increasing drag, impairs maneuverability, and it can cause physical damage to vessels and structures. To prevent fouling, boat owners often use hull paints containing pesticides and other chemicals, referred to as biocides. Copper-based hull paints are the most commonly used antifouling paints.

Antifouling Paint Legislation. In 2011, the Legislature restricted antifouling paint use on recreational water vessels in Washington as follows:

new recreational water vessels with antifouling paint containing copper may not be sold after January 1, 2018;
antifouling paint, intended for use on a recreational water vessel, which contains more than 0.5 percent copper may not be offered for sale beginning January 1, 2020; and
antifouling paint containing more than 0.5 percent copper may not be applied to a recreational water vessel beginning January 1, 2020.

The legislation also required the Department of Ecology (Ecology) to survey the types of antifouling paints sold in Washington, study how antifouling paints affect marine life and water quality, and report its findings to the Legislature by December 31, 2017.

In the 2017 report, Ecology recommended delaying the antifouling paint restrictions to allow time for further study, due to concerns some non-copper alternatives might be more harmful to the environment than the copper-based paints they replace.

In 2018, the Legislature delayed antifouling paint restrictions to 2021. The legislation also exempted wood boats from the restrictions and directed Ecology to submit a report to the Legislature by September 30, 2019 on the environmental impacts of antifouling paints and their ingredients; safer alternatives to antifouling paints or ingredients found in antifouling paints; and whether changes to the existing regulation of antifouling paints are needed.

In 2019, Ecology made the following recommendations:

delay the existing statutory ban on copper-based anti-fouling paints for an extended period, to allow more scientific information to be developed;
grant Ecology authority to request information from paint manufacturers regarding ingredients, leach rates, and other relevant data; and
ban the sale and application of antifouling paints containing Cybutryne/Irgarol for recreational vessels in Washington.

Summary of Bill: The restrictions on the use of copper-based antifouling paint on recreational vessels are delayed to January 1, 2026.

New restrictions on the use of Cybutryne-based antifouling paint are established as follows:

new recreational water vessels with antifouling paint containing Cybutryne may not be sold after January 1, 2023;
antifouling paint intended for use on a recreational water vessel that contains Cybutryne may not be offered for sale beginning January 1, 2023; and
antifouling paint containing Cybutryne may not be applied to a recreational water vessel beginning January 1, 2023.

A manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer of antifouling paints or related substances may be required to submit a notice to Ecology containing the following information:

a list of products, including a brief description of each product or product component containing the substance;
product ingredients, including the names of chemicals used or produced and applicable chemical abstracts service registry numbers;
information regarding exposure and chemical hazard;
a description of the function of each chemical in the product;
the amount of the chemical used in each unit of the product or product component;
the name and address of the manufacturer and the name, address, and phone number of a contact person for the manufacturer;
any other information the manufacturer deems relevant to the appropriate use of the product; and
any other information requested by Ecology.

The notice must be provided to Ecology no later than six months after receipt of the request.

Staff Summary of Public Testimony: PRO: The department needs more time to implement the ban. There are some cost-effective alternatives to copper. Copper is especially dangerous, not only toxic, with olfactory effects on salmon. More significantly, copper does not break down and it bioaccumulates in marine organisms. Zinc and Econea are out there and being used. In Sweden, boaters uses non-biocides and boat washing.

There is acknowledgement for additional research and steps to be taken. Unlike California, Washington has an inland sea which has unique conditions regarding how pollutants enter and stay. Ecology believes the science is sufficiently developed on the environmental dangers of Cybutryne. Ecology needs information to learn what paint alternatives are safer and have less environmental impacts. While a leach rate seems like a solution, Ecology does not have information about how paint manufacturers are achieving leach rates and what chemicals are added to make copper leach out more slowly.

OTHER: It is premature to ban without a better alternative. The end date is arbitrary with no opportunity for review down the road. The work of Ecology is appreciated, and it is clear from their work that implementation of a ban on copper is premature. The five-year delay is not a complete solution, but there must be a bill passed this session. Copper is not banned anywhere else in the world. Ecology should do a study between now and 2026 to produce the best solution and a way forward.

Previous efforts were made in San Diego to come up with alternatives to copper. Nothing worked as well as copper. The industry has been able to reduce amounts of copper and have come up with a leach rate model that is best for everyone. It is believed that this is the best alternative for all stakeholders involved, whether it be marinas, boatyards, do-it-yourselfers, the port authority, or the state. It is the best alternative in terms of invasive species, greenhouse gases, fuel consumption, and limiting pollution.