Economic and environmental impacts on ports and harbors from the convention to ban harmful marine anti-fouling systems

• Published in: Marine pollution bulletin 2003-08, Vol.46 (8), p.935-940
• Main Author: Champ, Michael A
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Animal, plant and microbial ecology; Applied ecology; Applied sciences; Biological and medical sciences; Commerce; Costs and Cost Analysis; Earth sciences; Earth, ocean, space; Ecotoxicology, biological effects of pollution; Engineering and environment geology. Geothermics; Environment; Exact sciences and technology; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Geologic Sediments; International Cooperation; Marine; Marine and brackish environment; Natural water pollution; Paint; Pest Control; Pollution; Pollution, environment geology; Refuse Disposal; Seawaters, estuaries; Ships; Trialkyltin Compounds - economics; Trialkyltin Compounds - toxicity; Water Pollution - economics; Water Pollution - prevention & control; Water treatment and pollution
• ISSN: 0025-326X; 1879-3363
• DOI: 10.1016/S0025-326X(03)00106-1

The recent Diplomatic Conference held (1–5 October 2001) by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in London adopted the Draft Convention prepared by The Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) of IMO for the “Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems for Ships.” The convention has been developed to immediately ban the use of Tributyltin (TBT) globally in anti-fouling paints to “protect the marine environment”. The ban on TBT has come about because TBT has detrimental effects on non-target marine organisms. In November 1999, IMO agreed that a treaty be developed by the MEPC to ensure a ban on the application of TBT based anti-fouling paints by 1 January 2003, and a ban on the use of TBT by 1 January 2008. At the meetings, serious concern was expressed by some experts for the need to identify in the treaty the necessary regulatory language for: (1) the “safe” removal, treatment, and disposal of marine anti-foulants deemed “harmful” by the treaty and (2) who is liable for the future dredging and disposal of TBT-contaminated port and harbor sediments––to also “protect the marine environment”. The requirement for “safe” removal and disposal was incorporated at MEPC 46 as Article 5 in the treaty, without it shipyards complying with existing national and local discharge regulations (most have none for discharge of TBT) could inadvertently release more TBT to ports and harbors in the five-year compliance period than has been leached from ships (hulls) in the past 40 years to the same waters. Virginia is the only State in the US that regulates the discharge to below 50 ng/l (50 parts per trillion). However, the liability for the future dredging and disposal costs of TBT-contaminated port and harbor sediments has not been addressed.