You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intercoastal dumping
- Thread starter pcator
- Start date
You are probably refering to a Marine Sanitation Device (MSD) Type I.
Raritan is the primary manufactuer--The lectrosan uses 12v current to break down salt water to chloride ion and bring the level of faecal bacterial level to a federal standard of 200 colonies per ML. There are also not susposed to be any visable solids.....This is legal in most parts of the ICW. Exception are at some of the Keys, some harbors which have closed circulation.
There is another type also by Raritan, which adds a direct halide chemical and uses less power. These are in addition to the commode and take several cubic feet of space (at a premium in C Dories).
My objection to these, is that the Cl is short lived, and once the bacteria is in the water it may remain viable for a short time--and human contact is not recommended. Also the BOD is decreased and the nitrogen load on a closed body of water. Where there is good flow this is OK. but in enclosed harbors with minimal flow--where the systems may not be in good repair, I think we may be fooling ourselves by thinking that these are more environmentally friendly.
I know all the arguements about cities dumping less than fully treated sewage, that large ships pollute, as do birds, mamals and fish. But I don't want to swim in human waste semi treated or not. So I have never owned one of these system, even when living aboard for many years in a marina where they were "legal".
I would do a lot of reading before buying one (about $1000 installed and power hungry if you use the electric model)--That is a lady who is quite knowlegable about marine sanitation: Peggy Hall. We disagree on this issue. My background is as an M D and having been a certified environmental engineer in Florida when I was doing consulting on wastewater management for three counties--she has written a book and owned a company she sold to Raritan. I respect her ideas on holding tanks, but we disagree on the environmental impact.
Stick with a porti potty or holding tank! Have a Y valve so you can discharge legally at sea.
Raritan is the primary manufactuer--The lectrosan uses 12v current to break down salt water to chloride ion and bring the level of faecal bacterial level to a federal standard of 200 colonies per ML. There are also not susposed to be any visable solids.....This is legal in most parts of the ICW. Exception are at some of the Keys, some harbors which have closed circulation.
There is another type also by Raritan, which adds a direct halide chemical and uses less power. These are in addition to the commode and take several cubic feet of space (at a premium in C Dories).
My objection to these, is that the Cl is short lived, and once the bacteria is in the water it may remain viable for a short time--and human contact is not recommended. Also the BOD is decreased and the nitrogen load on a closed body of water. Where there is good flow this is OK. but in enclosed harbors with minimal flow--where the systems may not be in good repair, I think we may be fooling ourselves by thinking that these are more environmentally friendly.
I know all the arguements about cities dumping less than fully treated sewage, that large ships pollute, as do birds, mamals and fish. But I don't want to swim in human waste semi treated or not. So I have never owned one of these system, even when living aboard for many years in a marina where they were "legal".
I would do a lot of reading before buying one (about $1000 installed and power hungry if you use the electric model)--That is a lady who is quite knowlegable about marine sanitation: Peggy Hall. We disagree on this issue. My background is as an M D and having been a certified environmental engineer in Florida when I was doing consulting on wastewater management for three counties--she has written a book and owned a company she sold to Raritan. I respect her ideas on holding tanks, but we disagree on the environmental impact.
Stick with a porti potty or holding tank! Have a Y valve so you can discharge legally at sea.
fiddlersgreen6
New member
Hi Patrick----I don't know the answer, but I think we have enough STUFF being discharged into the intercoastal on a daily bases. I have lived on the intercoastal since 1975, I had actually spent time along the Gulf coast area before there was an intercoastal on that side. I have had homes on both the east and west coast of Florida and have seen the quality of sea life deteriorate with over building(septic tanks) and pestcides(spraying),paper trash from workmen, locals and tourists(trash didn't invent itself, but Trashy People did), along with livestock and agricultural runoff. I have found toilet paper on my boat props at my dock some mornings. You use to be able to eat out of the intercoastal,(crabs, oysters,shrimp,all kinds of fish). Now you are taking your life in your hands(30 years later). The intercoastal does not have the same wash tub (cleaning) effect as the Gulf or Atlantic. Except for the limited Passes, it is basically a shallow manmade inland waterway with land on both sides with some daily tidal changes.
The Question is would you dump your boat's holding tank(no matter how you chopped it up) into your bath tub at home?----Rich--- Fiddler's Green-
The Question is would you dump your boat's holding tank(no matter how you chopped it up) into your bath tub at home?----Rich--- Fiddler's Green-
But I may keep it in the holding tank until I make a trip down to good ole Melbourne Beach.
Wise. Why dump into your own bathtub when there are so many others to share with?
I think I'll head down to Clearwater today and dump . . . :smiled
I recently read an article on MSD's and it was pointing out that more people should be using them and that the rules should not be so restrictive. The reason was that most people were not using pump outs because of the cost. The percentage was something in the teens. They were illegally dumping without the use of anything.
I am waiting for the delivery of my new CD25 and have been doing a lot of reading to learn what I can about the ICW. I do not yet know what I can and can't do on the ICW. I want to do the right thing. I have a hard time with it's okay to dump in the ocean just 3 miles off shore. I think it would be better to treat the waste and discharge it somewhere or use a pump out. I really wanted to know what is legal and what is not. Hence, the question. "Is it legal to dump waste using an MSD in other than NDZ's?" I think the answer is "Yes." If I am wrong than I would like to know. I do not want to get into a "Tree hugger" discussion. That's as bad as discussing politics. And this is a fun place.
I am waiting for the delivery of my new CD25 and have been doing a lot of reading to learn what I can about the ICW. I do not yet know what I can and can't do on the ICW. I want to do the right thing. I have a hard time with it's okay to dump in the ocean just 3 miles off shore. I think it would be better to treat the waste and discharge it somewhere or use a pump out. I really wanted to know what is legal and what is not. Hence, the question. "Is it legal to dump waste using an MSD in other than NDZ's?" I think the answer is "Yes." If I am wrong than I would like to know. I do not want to get into a "Tree hugger" discussion. That's as bad as discussing politics. And this is a fun place.
fiddlersgreen6
New member
Lloyds-- good question, in researching my old Waterway Facilities Guide, I found that most of the newer or re-built marinas along the ICW do have pump out facilities or at least a Honey Barge, while the older marinas are lacking in this area. I know years ago Naples, Fl. ( Old Naples Seaport) had a pumpout at every slip. Several places will let you pump for free as long as you buy gas,supplies, etc. or spend the night, otherwise the fees can range from $5.00 to $20.00 depending upon the holding tank size. I know Catalina Island has a very strick rule regarding dumping, they actually put dye in your head, to make sure you are not discharging in the harbor. Funny, but the biggest offenders are boaters who spend thousands on generators, radar, entertainment centers,etc. but, not a penny to dump.
Rich-----
Rich-----
This may be the only answer. Follow some of the links....
http://www.luxist.com/2006/10/11/igloo- ... table-loos
http://www.luxist.com/2006/10/11/igloo- ... table-loos
Rich: you are right about some of the people who will pay to dump, and those that won't. I have seen the dye trick at several marinas up in the seattle area. At least they will threaten to do it. I have had it done only once. I think the treatment facility in victoria is under construction, and vancouver either has primary treatment or has it planned. So BC is starting to catch up. Most of Puget Sound is fortunate in that it has a lot of tidal change. When you go to shore and hike the shoreline you can see a lot of seepage and waste coming from lots of waterfront property. And even on the central oregon coast, you see it in some of the rivers within tidewater. The EPA is slowly getting a lot of it cleaned up. But I was wondering about the East Coast, if they were as proactive as the West Coast in providing for handling of waste.
There are relitatively few pump stations on the Gulf Coast--and my impression from my trips down into S. Florida is that the situation is not much better there. Hurricanes have ravaged the coast and repairs of the pumpouts have been the last thing to be fixed.
You talk of dumping a MSD--MSD means Marine Sanitation Device. Type I is the Lectrasan or Purasan. Type I is maceration and disenfectant (the internet says 1000 coliforms/ml--that his not acceptable to me) Type II is for larger boats and is maceration and disinfection--to 200 colonies. Type III is a holding tank.
My personal opinion (as a physician and a person who has been in waterquality in Florida) is that the type 1 or 2 should not be allowed in areas where there is poor circulation. Most of The Southern and Gulf coast waters don't have good circulation. Thus I don't think it is acceptable.
It is only a few minute run to get out to sea--and there the large volume of water dilutes the sewage (dilution is the solution--not really--there are other implicatins of putting any sewage into the water. But I am one of those guys who is super critical of trying to clean up the waterways! Every little bit helps.
You talk of dumping a MSD--MSD means Marine Sanitation Device. Type I is the Lectrasan or Purasan. Type I is maceration and disenfectant (the internet says 1000 coliforms/ml--that his not acceptable to me) Type II is for larger boats and is maceration and disinfection--to 200 colonies. Type III is a holding tank.
My personal opinion (as a physician and a person who has been in waterquality in Florida) is that the type 1 or 2 should not be allowed in areas where there is poor circulation. Most of The Southern and Gulf coast waters don't have good circulation. Thus I don't think it is acceptable.
It is only a few minute run to get out to sea--and there the large volume of water dilutes the sewage (dilution is the solution--not really--there are other implicatins of putting any sewage into the water. But I am one of those guys who is super critical of trying to clean up the waterways! Every little bit helps.
There are many thoughts on the subject, not all run towards chemicals, as the chemicals themselves may be more harmful than the sewage and prevent the natural bacteria in it from breaking it down, thus prolonging the sewage problem (if it is a problem at all). As previously aluded to (by others), there is much disagreement on the subject.
While not firmly in any camp (chemical or no treat), I do realize humans, in general, poop once every day to once every three days, no matter what I do, and I want to say right here right now that diapers on dolphins and whales is animal cruelty. I have actually seen a whale dump, and the entire city of Newark has nothing on a whale.
What most actually object to isn't the turd in the water decomposing, it's the toilet paper they see, so use a type that breaks up quickly no matter how you're doing it.
Join PEPA (Pro Ethically Pooping Americans) Today!
While not firmly in any camp (chemical or no treat), I do realize humans, in general, poop once every day to once every three days, no matter what I do, and I want to say right here right now that diapers on dolphins and whales is animal cruelty. I have actually seen a whale dump, and the entire city of Newark has nothing on a whale.
What most actually object to isn't the turd in the water decomposing, it's the toilet paper they see, so use a type that breaks up quickly no matter how you're doing it.
Join PEPA (Pro Ethically Pooping Americans) Today!
Flagold and all... Comparing wildlife to humans, I was amazed a few years ago when I arrived at my rented "beach side" cabin on beautiful, clear, deep, Beaver Lake, Arkansas to find that the beach had been closed due to E. Coli contamination! The culprits? Geese.... Canadian Geese!!! Foreigners!!! JJ
Anyway, we have lots of Canadian Geese year round here in Kansas area and I was surprised to learn they are the heaviest polluters of water with E. Coli. So, maybe diapers on the geese?
John
Anyway, we have lots of Canadian Geese year round here in Kansas area and I was surprised to learn they are the heaviest polluters of water with E. Coli. So, maybe diapers on the geese?
John
While the coliform bacteria are not good in themselves, and definitely can cause sickness, the coliform bacteria count is used as an indicator of what might also be in the water, bacteria wise.
Coliform bacteria are residents in most animal guts, and help digest food.
Their presence, as indicated by colony counts in bacteria cultures taken for sampling purposes, are indicators of what ALSO might be in the water that contains them and other bacteria from the animals/humans from which they came, such as typhoid, dysentary, etc.
Thataway (Dr. Bob Austin) can correct me if my memories from Bacteriology 100 are incorrect or incomplete.
Joe.[/i]
Coliform bacteria are residents in most animal guts, and help digest food.
Their presence, as indicated by colony counts in bacteria cultures taken for sampling purposes, are indicators of what ALSO might be in the water that contains them and other bacteria from the animals/humans from which they came, such as typhoid, dysentary, etc.
Thataway (Dr. Bob Austin) can correct me if my memories from Bacteriology 100 are incorrect or incomplete.
Joe.[/i]
I tend to fall in the camp that most of that stuff will be in the water no matter what we do. If humans were removed, there'd be an explosion in other populations which would simply dump their duty right in the water unimpeded and certainly untreated. The ducks are an excellent example, they've certainly made my little pond out back unihabitable for anything beyond mosquitos.
Six of one . . .
Six of one . . .
A
Anonymous
Guest
Remember ole what's his face the E=mc**2 guy? You know, he was the one who had that mass-energy conservation law stating the universe's total matter plus energy is constant-- you can convert matter into energy and energy into matter? Think about that for a minuite and realize that you are merly relocating the turds no matter where you place them in disposal! Whether or not you include chemicals, grinding or what ever a turd is a turd! Now about this dumping thing, where & when legal, I say dump it, we are so small in the overall scheme of things that it really is not going to matter one way or the other. I was once told by a retired navy waste water treatment fellow, "Dillution is the solution". :xlol Mike on Huda Thunkit.
Alasgun":3fn01ls8 said:I say dump it, we are so small in the overall scheme of things that it really is not going to matter one way or the other. I was once told by a retired navy waste water treatment fellow, "Dillution is the solution". :xlol Mike on Huda Thunkit.
Shit!.......soon, I really will be able to walk on water!....that'll make a believer out of my wife, I've been trying to tell her that for years... :lol:
There certainly is a range of opinions on this issue, as one might expect, considering the sensitivity of the topic, the size of the ocean, the restrictive nature of some waterways, and the expected differences of point of view.
With these differences, it's necessary to realize that there will be those who dump, so long as it's legal, and probably a few who will anyway until they get caught or are forced to re-plumb their boats so that overboard dumping would be impossible.
Thus if you feel that dumping should be more restricted, at least in certain areas, the only solution is to seek tighter regulations and enforcement.
Here in Shasta Lake, a resevoir, and admittedly a more sensitive body of water to health concerns, the U.S. Forrest Service has sequentially tightened regulations until the following prevail:
1. No discharge of black or grey water is permitted, anytime,, anywhere.
2. All black and grey water must be disposed of through a pumpout station, which all marinas must provide to their customers.
3. All boats using the lake with USFS Permits (31 ft and over) must have their water disposal systems modified so that all waste water is held in holding tanks for pump out.
4. Overboard discharge tubes and vents must be permanently blocked through plumbing modifications. (My larger boat has had this done.)
This approach might seem too radical for open ocean or limited size waterway application, but dumping by some will continue until government regulations and enforcement force those who don't believe there's any problem to put the plug in the hole.
I'm usually not one to suggest more government involvement, but in some areas like this, voluntary compliance will not result in too much change in the status quo.
It's too bad there isn't some easy middle ground in this, but that's the way things are now with fairly open regulations and pretty much voluntary compliance, considering the difficulty of enforcing anti-dumping regulations because of the vastness of the area to be supervised.*
I honesty wouldn't be pleased with such radical changes, but where can we find some practical agreed upon middle ground?
Realistically, it's a big world out there, and we'll never stop the cruise ships and others from dumping in international waters, but we can have some control over our near home waters, particularly those waterways in front of our homes and others that need special protection.
Some obviously don't see any problem, others definiely do!
* grey water coluld be excepted from tighter regulation in many areas.
Joe.
With these differences, it's necessary to realize that there will be those who dump, so long as it's legal, and probably a few who will anyway until they get caught or are forced to re-plumb their boats so that overboard dumping would be impossible.
Thus if you feel that dumping should be more restricted, at least in certain areas, the only solution is to seek tighter regulations and enforcement.
Here in Shasta Lake, a resevoir, and admittedly a more sensitive body of water to health concerns, the U.S. Forrest Service has sequentially tightened regulations until the following prevail:
1. No discharge of black or grey water is permitted, anytime,, anywhere.
2. All black and grey water must be disposed of through a pumpout station, which all marinas must provide to their customers.
3. All boats using the lake with USFS Permits (31 ft and over) must have their water disposal systems modified so that all waste water is held in holding tanks for pump out.
4. Overboard discharge tubes and vents must be permanently blocked through plumbing modifications. (My larger boat has had this done.)
This approach might seem too radical for open ocean or limited size waterway application, but dumping by some will continue until government regulations and enforcement force those who don't believe there's any problem to put the plug in the hole.
I'm usually not one to suggest more government involvement, but in some areas like this, voluntary compliance will not result in too much change in the status quo.
It's too bad there isn't some easy middle ground in this, but that's the way things are now with fairly open regulations and pretty much voluntary compliance, considering the difficulty of enforcing anti-dumping regulations because of the vastness of the area to be supervised.*
I honesty wouldn't be pleased with such radical changes, but where can we find some practical agreed upon middle ground?
Realistically, it's a big world out there, and we'll never stop the cruise ships and others from dumping in international waters, but we can have some control over our near home waters, particularly those waterways in front of our homes and others that need special protection.
Some obviously don't see any problem, others definiely do!
* grey water coluld be excepted from tighter regulation in many areas.
Joe.