THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, November 11, 1996 TAG: 9611110039
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY SCOTT HARPER, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: NORFOLK LENGTH: 180 lines
The Navy is about to embark on a much different adventure at sea: a five-year environmental study of a dangerous chemical, known as TBT, used at big shipyards in Hampton Roads and in other ports around the globe.
While TBT's role in the maritime industry is small - it keeps barnacles off ship hulls - this boat-paint additive has sparked decades of fierce debate, including threats of lawsuits, talk of an international ban and much angst about its toxic effects on marine life.
Against this backdrop, it seems only fitting that the Navy's new research project, assigned by Congress and expected to cost $5 million, is not without its own controversy.
When passed this fall on Capitol Hill, the study was hailed by Virginia as ``a major victory.'' State politicians, including Gov. George Allen and U.S. Sen. John Warner, said the study would force the federal government to finally start regulating TBT as instructed by Congress eight years ago.
But several state officials and federal researchers say the government already is collecting much of the same data that the Navy will gather.
They call the study redundant at best, a waste of tax dollars at worst.
``It's not clear what this would accomplish,'' said Richard Dumas, a supervisor for pesticide review at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington.
Further, Dumas and other officials say, results from the Navy's work will not be used in setting a national standard for TBT in the environment. Virginia has long stated that such a limit is its ultimate goal.
``The information we'd get is not what we'd use'' to set a standard, said Frank Gostomski, an EPA biologist in Washington.
A national standard would define how much TBT any shipyard could legally use and later discharge into a river or harbor. Despite years of research and international attention, scientists like Gostomski cannot agree on what that numerical standard should be.
Virginia's exuberance over the Navy study seems rooted more in politics than in science, say several officials in Richmond and Washington and a host of conservationists.
They note how state Republican leaders, often criticized on environmental issues, want to appear proactive on TBT - not only for the sake of marine ecology and the health of the Chesapeake Bay, but also for the benefit of local shipyards.
Virginia's regulations on the use of TBT are among the toughest in the nation. And big shipyards, such as Newport News Shipbuilding and Norshipco, have long complained that they lose business to competitors in other coastal states where the rules are less stringent.
An across-the-board, national standard would ``level the playing field,'' shipyard executives have said.
Alan Anthony, Virginia's top scientist at the state Department of Environmental Quality, disagreed that politics is driving the new study.
He said the research should provide ``better data'' than what the EPA is generating now, and should help fill gaps in what modern science has calculated about this tin-based chemical, also known by its formal name, tributyltin.
Anthony concurred, however, that such data will not help set a national toxicity standard for TBT. That limit will result from laboratory tests on live marine animals, not on water sampling, as the Navy will do.
Still, Anthony said, the data should help ``refine'' that key standard in the future. ``I think we'll get a better sense of the problem, really,'' he said.
The Navy, meanwhile, has yet to appoint an officer to oversee the work, state officials said. Indeed, it took three weeks for the Navy to respond to questions from the media about how warships will conduct scientific research.
``The Navy has done testing for TBT before, so it's just a matter of gearing up again,'' said Ensign Herb Josey, a Navy spokesman in Norfolk.
The Navy is preparing a report describing how it will monitor waters at ports of call and then provide its findings to the EPA. Congress required the EPA to finance the five years of Navy research.
``We really don't have any more details right now,'' Josey said.
The EPA opposed the study when it was proposed earlier this year as part of the Defense Authorization Bill. U.S. Rep. Herb Bateman, R-1st District, and Sen. John Warner were the chief sponsors.
The Navy did not oppose or support the study, Josey said.
Developed in the mid-1960s, TBT is extremely effective at controlling barnacles and other growth on ship hulls. Barnacles, tiny shellfish, can foul equipment and cause a ship to drag through the water, increasing its energy costs.
In the early 1980s, France and then Britain took the first strides to limit the use of TBT. Their restrictions were based on studies showing detrimental effects on oysters near shipyards.
Similarly, lab tests mimicking TBT conditions in the Elizabeth River by Old Dominion University found that some fish did not develop tails; they simply swam in circles.
The Navy voluntarily stopped using TBT on most of its ships in the 1980s, shifting to a copper-based antifoulant. It proved less effective than TBT, according to published reports, but the Navy has stayed with its environmental policy.
The new study comes at a time of much antagonism between Virginia and the EPA. The two have been feuding over clean-air rules, the state's commitment to the Chesapeake Bay cleanup and enforcement of environmental laws.
The EPA rejected an effort by the state Department of Environmental Quality last year to drop numerical TBT limits from water-pollution permits for Newport News Shipbuilding.
This attempt by DEQ, which sparked much criticism from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and other environmental groups, was later reversed.
Most officials view Warner and Bateman's demands that the EPA pay for the Navy's research as a legislative slap in the face for delaying action on the chemical for so long.
Spokesmen for the two political leaders said their interests in the study were to ``motivate'' and ``help'' the EPA in its long-delayed efforts at setting a national TBT standard.
``The EPA has been working on this for eight years now; Congressman Bateman wanted to force their hand, to get this effort moving again,'' said Dan Scandling, a spokesman for Bateman.
Congress in 1988 directed the EPA to establish a national limit by 1989. The agency published one proposed standard on time, but it was shot down as too lax by federal wildlife experts and too restrictive by industry. Not much has happened since then, EPA officials concede.
Interestingly, the EPA's proposed standard in 1989 was 10 times weaker (10 parts per trillion) than what Virginia requires under its state regulations (1 part per trillion).
``We're not innocent in this by any stretch,'' the EPA's Dumas said. ``It's definitely been a difficult project,'' delayed for numerous reasons, including poorly gathered water samples, a lawsuit that took three years to settle and political changes in Washington.
Frustrated by the delays, Virginia Attorney General James S. Gilmore III threatened to sue the EPA this summer for not doing its job by setting a standard.
Gilmore, an all-but-announced GOP candidate for governor next year, has demanded that the federal agency complete its research and publish a proposal ``soon.''
EPA officials say the threat has worked. ``Oh, yeah, TBT is definitely on the front burner again,'' said Dumas. ``We're preparing to release two reports to Congress on the matter.''
But with the Navy study taking five years to complete, several state environmental officials privately question the wisdom of giving the federal government even more time to study TBT.
If the Gilmore tack were working, they say, why gum it up with a new, long-term research project?
Mark Miner, a spokesman for Gilmore, did not comment on whether the attorney general favors the study. Miner said, however, that Gilmore still was considering a lawsuit against EPA for its tardiness, regardless of the study.
``We're still pushing for action,'' he said. ``This is something the EPA should have done a long time ago, and their inaction has hurt Virginians.'' ILLUSTRATION: THE CONTROVERSY:
POLITICIANS hail a $5 million study by the Navy as a ``major
victory'' and claim it will force the federal government to start
regulating TBT.
SEVERAL STATE OFFICIALS and federal researchers say, however, the
government is already collecting much of the same data the Navy will
gather.
REGULATION OF TBT: CHRONOLOGY
Chronology of government regulation of tributyltin, or TBT, a
highly toxic additive in boat paint used at shipyards in Hampton
Roads. TBT keeps barnacles off ship hulls, but also it can poison
fish and shellfish:
1982: France adopts first restrictions on TBT based on studies
showing growth and reproductive damage to oysters; Britain follows
suit three years later.
1987: Virginia General Assembly passes law banning TBT on all
nonaluminum boats less than 25 meters long.
1988: The State Water Control Board approves a more explicit,
state water-quality standard for TBT, allowing 1 part per trillion
of the chemical in any stream or harbor. The standard is routinely
exceeded in Elizabeth River and James River, near big shipyards in
Hampton Roads.
Congress instructs the Environmental Protection Agency to develop
by 1989 a national standard for TBT to protect marine life.
1989 EPA proposes a national standard of 10 parts per trillion;
the number is rejected by industry as too tough and by wildlife
experts as too weak.
1994 Newport News Shipbuilding protests numerical limit of 50
parts per trillion in its state water-pollution permit. Negotiations
with state ensue.
1995 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality proposes to do
away with numerical limits in shipyard permits. Chesapeake Bay
Foundation and other environmental groups protest. Under pressure
from EPA, Virginia later reverses decision.
1996 Virginia Attorney General James S. Gilmore III threatens to
sue EPA for not developing a national standard in a timely manner.
Virginia's Sen. John Warner and Rep. Herb Bateman get five-year
study of TBT approved in Congress, to be conducted by the Navy at
EPA's expense.
KEYWORDS: ENVIRONMENT POLLUTION STUDY by CNB