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.
New Poo Regulations ??
- Thread starter Grumpy
- Start date
PaulNBriannaLynn
New member
Bout time! :thup :thup I already assumed that was the law around here.
Not to step on anybody's toes that prefers to dump their poo into the Sound, but the owners of these big boats have the money to retrofit to a closed system, if they have the boat to begin with.
Not to step on anybody's toes that prefers to dump their poo into the Sound, but the owners of these big boats have the money to retrofit to a closed system, if they have the boat to begin with.
The issue is the systems like LectroSan. Simplistically, there is a current passed thru the salt water, which produces a hypochlorite solution, and decreases the bacterial content. There can be mal functions. Also salt has to be added if the boat is in brackish or fresh water. The discharge has to meet a certain bacteriological level. I suspect Brent will address this better than I could.
There are already a number of no discharge zones in the US--mostly closed water with poor circulation.
There are already a number of no discharge zones in the US--mostly closed water with poor circulation.
I agree this is forward thinking excellent pubic policy
but would like to read the data gathering metrics (maybe more than ships... storm sewers over flow, aging treatment plants and the study methods ( very useful in 10 yrs from now and reducing shellfish contaimation and outbreaks) .... none the less good idea
I am reading the Lectroscan info now
go to
http://www.raritaneng.com/products/wast ... rasan.html
and didnt see the effectiveness of reducing bacteria and virsues
I did notice the unit is not legal in Federally designated no discharge areas and no discharge and holding tank containment being the gold standard .
It appears to be in the earlier stages so it might be years before it goes in effect if at all ..... It is a tough road
but would like to read the data gathering metrics (maybe more than ships... storm sewers over flow, aging treatment plants and the study methods ( very useful in 10 yrs from now and reducing shellfish contaimation and outbreaks) .... none the less good idea
I am reading the Lectroscan info now
go to
http://www.raritaneng.com/products/wast ... rasan.html
and didnt see the effectiveness of reducing bacteria and virsues
I did notice the unit is not legal in Federally designated no discharge areas and no discharge and holding tank containment being the gold standard .
It appears to be in the earlier stages so it might be years before it goes in effect if at all ..... It is a tough road
Doesn't Victoria BC still discharge untreated sewage into the Straight of Juan de Fuca (granted its pretty far down)?
Washington DC, discharges 2 billion gallons of raw sewage a year into the Potomac and Anacostia rivers.
Seems that the discharges from a few boats aren't likely to make much difference.
Washington DC, discharges 2 billion gallons of raw sewage a year into the Potomac and Anacostia rivers.
Seems that the discharges from a few boats aren't likely to make much difference.
AstoriaDave
New member
The screwy thing about Puget Sound is that many parts have vigorous tidal exchanges and heavy currents, certain to dilute any discharges, yet other PS waters have poor exchange, and poo pollution could generate a health hazard in short order.
Discharges of organic matter which have been thoroughly treated for bacterial material are probably a useful source of nutrients, open waters ... but not good for confined waters, where nutrient buildup can turn things foul fast.
Discharges of organic matter which have been thoroughly treated for bacterial material are probably a useful source of nutrients, open waters ... but not good for confined waters, where nutrient buildup can turn things foul fast.
Regulation of ship pollution in the United States
wiki
excerpt
Marine sanitation devices
Section 312 of the Clean Water Act seeks to address this gap by prohibiting the dumping of untreated or inadequately treated sewage from vessels into the navigable waters of the United States (defined in the act as within 3 miles (4.8 km) of shore). It is implemented jointly by EPA and the Coast Guard. Under Section 312, commercial and recreational vessels with installed toilets are required to have marine sanitation devices (MSDs), which are designed to prevent the discharge of untreated sewage. EPA is responsible for developing performance standards for MSDs, and the Coast Guard is responsible for MSD design and operation regulations and for certifying MSD compliance with the EPA rules. MSDs are designed either to hold sewage for shore-based disposal or to treat sewage prior to discharge.
The Coast Guard regulations cover three types of MSDs.[4] Large vessels use either Type II or Type III MSDs. In Type II MSDs, the waste is either chemically or biologically treated prior to discharge and must meet limits of no more than 200 fecal coliforms per 100 milliliters and no more than 150 milligrams per liter of suspended solids. Type III MSDs store wastes and do not treat them; the waste is pumped out later and treated in an onshore system or discharged outside U.S. waters. Type I MSDs use chemicals to disinfect the raw sewage prior to discharge and must meet a performance standard for fecal coliform bacteria of not greater than 1,000 per 100 milliliters and no visible floating solids. Type I MSDs are generally only found on recreational vessels or others under 65 feet (20 m) in length. The regulations, which have not been revised since 1976, do not require ship operators to sample, monitor, or report on their effluent discharges.
Critics point out a number of deficiencies with this regulatory structure as it affects large vessels. First, the MSD regulations only cover discharges of bacterial contaminants and suspended solids, while the NPDES permit program for other point sources typically regulates many more pollutants such as chemicals, pesticides, heavy metals, oil, and grease that may be released by large vessels as well as land-based sources. Second, sources subject to NPDES permits must comply with sampling, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, which do not exist in the MSD rules.
In addition, the Coast Guard, responsible for inspecting vessels for compliance with the MSD rules, has been heavily criticized for poor enforcement of Section 312 requirements. In its 2000 report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said that Coast Guard inspectors “rarely have time during scheduled ship examinations to inspect sewage treatment equipment or filter systems to see if they are working properly and filtering out potentially harmful contaminants.”[1]:34–5 GAO reported that a number of factors limit the ability of Coast Guard inspectors to detect violations of environmental law and rules, including the inspectors’ focus on safety, the large size some ships, limited time and staff for inspections, and the lack of an element of surprise concerning inspections. The Coast Guard carries out a wide range of responsibilities that encompass both homeland security (ports, waterways, and coastal security, defense readiness, drug and migrant interdiction) and non-homeland security (search and rescue, marine environmental protection, fisheries enforcement, aids to navigation). Since the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, the Coast Guard has focused more of its resources on homeland security activities. One likely result is that less of the Coast Guard’s time and attention are available for vessel inspections for MSD or other environmental compliance.[citation needed]
Annex IV of MARPOL was drafted to regulate sewage discharges from vessels. It has entered into force internationally and would apply to ships that are flagged in ratifying countries, but because the United States has not ratified Annex IV, it is not mandatory that ships follow it when in U.S. waters. However, its requirements are minimal, even compared with U.S. rules for MSDs. Annex IV requires that vessels be equipped with a certified sewage treatment system or holding tank, but it prescribes no specific performance standards. Within three miles (5 km) of shore, Annex IV requires that sewage discharges be treated by a certified MSD prior to discharge. Between three and 12 miles (19 km) from shore, sewage discharges must be treated by no less than maceration or chlorination; sewage discharges beyond 12 miles (19 km) from shore are unrestricted. Vessels are permitted to meet alternative, less stringent requirements when they are in the jurisdiction of countries where less stringent requirements apply. In U.S. waters, vessels must comply with the regulations implementing Section 312 of the Clean Water Act.
On some ships, especially many of those that travel in Alaskan waters, sewage is treated using Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) systems that generally provide improved screening, treatment, disinfection, and sludge processing as compared with traditional Type II MSDs. AWTs are believed to be very effective in removing pathogens, oxygen demanding substances, suspended solids, oil and grease, and particulate metals from sewage, but only moderately effective in removing dissolved metals and nutrients (ammonia, nitrogen and phosphorus).
No-discharge zones
Section 312 has another means of addressing sewage discharges, through establishment of no-discharge zones (NDZs) for vessel sewage. A state may completely prohibit the discharge of both treated and untreated sewage from all vessels with installed toilets into some or all waters over which it has jurisdiction (up to 3 miles (4.8 km) from land). To create a no-discharge zone to protect waters from sewage discharges by vessels, the state must apply to EPA under one of three categories.
NDZ based on the need for greater environmental protection, and the state demonstrates that adequate pumpout facilities for safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available. As of 2008, this category of designation has been used for 61 areas representing part or all of the waters of 26 states, including a number of inland states.
NDZ for special waters found to have a particular environmental importance (e.g., to protect environmentally sensitive areas such as shellfish beds or coral reefs); it is not necessary for the state to show pumpout availability. This category of designation has been used twice (state waters within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and the Boundary Waters Canoe area of Minnesota).
NDZ to prohibit the discharge of sewage into waters that are drinking water intake zones; it is not necessary for the state to show pumpout availability. This category of designation has been used to protect part of the Hudson River in New York.
wiki
excerpt
Marine sanitation devices
Section 312 of the Clean Water Act seeks to address this gap by prohibiting the dumping of untreated or inadequately treated sewage from vessels into the navigable waters of the United States (defined in the act as within 3 miles (4.8 km) of shore). It is implemented jointly by EPA and the Coast Guard. Under Section 312, commercial and recreational vessels with installed toilets are required to have marine sanitation devices (MSDs), which are designed to prevent the discharge of untreated sewage. EPA is responsible for developing performance standards for MSDs, and the Coast Guard is responsible for MSD design and operation regulations and for certifying MSD compliance with the EPA rules. MSDs are designed either to hold sewage for shore-based disposal or to treat sewage prior to discharge.
The Coast Guard regulations cover three types of MSDs.[4] Large vessels use either Type II or Type III MSDs. In Type II MSDs, the waste is either chemically or biologically treated prior to discharge and must meet limits of no more than 200 fecal coliforms per 100 milliliters and no more than 150 milligrams per liter of suspended solids. Type III MSDs store wastes and do not treat them; the waste is pumped out later and treated in an onshore system or discharged outside U.S. waters. Type I MSDs use chemicals to disinfect the raw sewage prior to discharge and must meet a performance standard for fecal coliform bacteria of not greater than 1,000 per 100 milliliters and no visible floating solids. Type I MSDs are generally only found on recreational vessels or others under 65 feet (20 m) in length. The regulations, which have not been revised since 1976, do not require ship operators to sample, monitor, or report on their effluent discharges.
Critics point out a number of deficiencies with this regulatory structure as it affects large vessels. First, the MSD regulations only cover discharges of bacterial contaminants and suspended solids, while the NPDES permit program for other point sources typically regulates many more pollutants such as chemicals, pesticides, heavy metals, oil, and grease that may be released by large vessels as well as land-based sources. Second, sources subject to NPDES permits must comply with sampling, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, which do not exist in the MSD rules.
In addition, the Coast Guard, responsible for inspecting vessels for compliance with the MSD rules, has been heavily criticized for poor enforcement of Section 312 requirements. In its 2000 report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said that Coast Guard inspectors “rarely have time during scheduled ship examinations to inspect sewage treatment equipment or filter systems to see if they are working properly and filtering out potentially harmful contaminants.”[1]:34–5 GAO reported that a number of factors limit the ability of Coast Guard inspectors to detect violations of environmental law and rules, including the inspectors’ focus on safety, the large size some ships, limited time and staff for inspections, and the lack of an element of surprise concerning inspections. The Coast Guard carries out a wide range of responsibilities that encompass both homeland security (ports, waterways, and coastal security, defense readiness, drug and migrant interdiction) and non-homeland security (search and rescue, marine environmental protection, fisheries enforcement, aids to navigation). Since the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, the Coast Guard has focused more of its resources on homeland security activities. One likely result is that less of the Coast Guard’s time and attention are available for vessel inspections for MSD or other environmental compliance.[citation needed]
Annex IV of MARPOL was drafted to regulate sewage discharges from vessels. It has entered into force internationally and would apply to ships that are flagged in ratifying countries, but because the United States has not ratified Annex IV, it is not mandatory that ships follow it when in U.S. waters. However, its requirements are minimal, even compared with U.S. rules for MSDs. Annex IV requires that vessels be equipped with a certified sewage treatment system or holding tank, but it prescribes no specific performance standards. Within three miles (5 km) of shore, Annex IV requires that sewage discharges be treated by a certified MSD prior to discharge. Between three and 12 miles (19 km) from shore, sewage discharges must be treated by no less than maceration or chlorination; sewage discharges beyond 12 miles (19 km) from shore are unrestricted. Vessels are permitted to meet alternative, less stringent requirements when they are in the jurisdiction of countries where less stringent requirements apply. In U.S. waters, vessels must comply with the regulations implementing Section 312 of the Clean Water Act.
On some ships, especially many of those that travel in Alaskan waters, sewage is treated using Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) systems that generally provide improved screening, treatment, disinfection, and sludge processing as compared with traditional Type II MSDs. AWTs are believed to be very effective in removing pathogens, oxygen demanding substances, suspended solids, oil and grease, and particulate metals from sewage, but only moderately effective in removing dissolved metals and nutrients (ammonia, nitrogen and phosphorus).
No-discharge zones
Section 312 has another means of addressing sewage discharges, through establishment of no-discharge zones (NDZs) for vessel sewage. A state may completely prohibit the discharge of both treated and untreated sewage from all vessels with installed toilets into some or all waters over which it has jurisdiction (up to 3 miles (4.8 km) from land). To create a no-discharge zone to protect waters from sewage discharges by vessels, the state must apply to EPA under one of three categories.
NDZ based on the need for greater environmental protection, and the state demonstrates that adequate pumpout facilities for safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available. As of 2008, this category of designation has been used for 61 areas representing part or all of the waters of 26 states, including a number of inland states.
NDZ for special waters found to have a particular environmental importance (e.g., to protect environmentally sensitive areas such as shellfish beds or coral reefs); it is not necessary for the state to show pumpout availability. This category of designation has been used twice (state waters within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and the Boundary Waters Canoe area of Minnesota).
NDZ to prohibit the discharge of sewage into waters that are drinking water intake zones; it is not necessary for the state to show pumpout availability. This category of designation has been used to protect part of the Hudson River in New York.
Seems that the discharges from a few boats aren't likely to make much difference.
Millions of salmon, orca, seals, sea lions, fish, whales...yep. I doubt our 9 gallons will have such a dramatic, "they sky is falling" effect.
Plus, half the time I try a pump the damn things aren't working.
"Although the total volume of vessel discharge is small compared to other sources of wastewater, the ability to discharge near or in shellfish beds with little or no treatment presents a significant public health risk,"
So "logic" dictates, go after the boaters, not the larger polluters. Nah.
Ah, Olympia. Never met a reg they all didn't just love.
localboy":21euvzbx said:Seems that the discharges from a few boats aren't likely to make much difference.
Millions of salmon, orca, seals, sea lions, fish...yep. I doubt our 9 gallons will have such a dramatic, "they sky is falling" effect.
You mean Seals go #2 ! :shock:
chimoii":evls2okk said:localboy":evls2okk said:Seems that the discharges from a few boats aren't likely to make much difference.
Millions of salmon, orca, seals, sea lions, fish...yep. I doubt our 9 gallons will have such a dramatic, "they sky is falling" effect.
You mean Seals go #2 ! :shock:
I know! Amazing. :wink: Most of what we have dumped is "pure liquids". We try to do the "hard work" on land, if you get my drift.
redbaronace
New member
I think they could have exempted boats under a certain size, say under 25'. There are far worse sources of pollution out there. It could be said that human waste is natural.
One thing about most larger sources of pollution is that we generally know where they are at. For example, I don't think there are commercial shellfish operations immediately adjacent to sewage outflows from cities. However, small unregulated boats could dump their sewage anyplace (including near frequently harvested oyster beds). Many shellfish concentrate viruses so I don't think it's unreasonable to also regulate small boat owners in this regard.
AstoriaDave
New member
Shellfish do pick up bacteria, viruses, etc. Roger, ever wondered how many of those older cabins along the Hood Canal have straight shots to the water? Victoria is a straight shot. So is all of Bamfield.rogerbum":2dohmyr5 said:One thing about most larger sources of pollution is that we generally know where they are at. For example, I don't think there are commercial shellfish operations immediately adjacent to sewage outflows from cities. However, small unregulated boats could dump their sewage anyplace (including near frequently harvested oyster beds). Many shellfish concentrate viruses so I don't think it's unreasonable to also regulate small boat owners in this regard.
For the record, the MSD goes along, even on day trips. OTOH, hard to believe the quantity of urine the typical hog line of boats during spring chinook season on the Columbia might materially impair its water quality. Poo, another matter, entirely, so to speak.
It has been fairly difficult to get an area designated as a "no discharge" area. Here is the list: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/vwd/vsdnozone.cfm
In Pensacola there are regular coliform tests done. (I won't go into the different types of testing and what they mean). There was consideration of one area becoming a "no discharge area". Coliforms can be identified as to what species they come from. It turned out that in this specific bay, the vast majority of the offending coliforms came from waterfowl!
There have been a number of studies done, including in the State of Washington, Conclusion of one:
"The most frequent sources found in samples from the two small creeks on Johnson Point represented animals living in that rural area – birds, deer, canines (coyotes dogs, foxes, etc.), and rodents. The sources in the Woodland Creek samples reflected the urbanized watershed, with people and dogs being the predominant sources seen.
The study recommendations included undertaking programs to address human sewage and pet waste contamination. The full report can be found on the county website at www.co.thurston.wa.us/shellfish.
I think that your DNR should document where the pollution is coming from before doing reflex law making against boaters. That being said, we never discharge fecal material in any inland waters--always at least 3 miles to SEA!
In Pensacola there are regular coliform tests done. (I won't go into the different types of testing and what they mean). There was consideration of one area becoming a "no discharge area". Coliforms can be identified as to what species they come from. It turned out that in this specific bay, the vast majority of the offending coliforms came from waterfowl!
There have been a number of studies done, including in the State of Washington, Conclusion of one:
"The most frequent sources found in samples from the two small creeks on Johnson Point represented animals living in that rural area – birds, deer, canines (coyotes dogs, foxes, etc.), and rodents. The sources in the Woodland Creek samples reflected the urbanized watershed, with people and dogs being the predominant sources seen.
The study recommendations included undertaking programs to address human sewage and pet waste contamination. The full report can be found on the county website at www.co.thurston.wa.us/shellfish.
I think that your DNR should document where the pollution is coming from before doing reflex law making against boaters. That being said, we never discharge fecal material in any inland waters--always at least 3 miles to SEA!
I think that your DNR should document where the pollution is coming from before doing reflex law making against boaters.
That is my point in all this. But remember this is the place that thinks it's "saving the environment" by making plastic shopping bags illegal. :roll:
But remember, fish eat this stuff.
Ex: Many dolphin are trapped and die in nets with trapped tuna because they feed on tuna feces (and don't jump the nets). Why wouldn't they like ours?
Also, with the amount of oil spilled in the Gulf recently, with many doom sayers, the oil (or it's breakdown products) did not have the horrific impact many predicted. Apparently, much of this was due to not counting on the microorganisms hefty appetite for the stuff.
And please, I'm not excusing or minimizing the BP Gulf oil spill. And, I'm not advocating dumping our waste overboard.
I am counting on fish and our smaller microbe buddies to clean up our mess.
Please send cards and accolades to them.
Aye.
Ex: Many dolphin are trapped and die in nets with trapped tuna because they feed on tuna feces (and don't jump the nets). Why wouldn't they like ours?
Also, with the amount of oil spilled in the Gulf recently, with many doom sayers, the oil (or it's breakdown products) did not have the horrific impact many predicted. Apparently, much of this was due to not counting on the microorganisms hefty appetite for the stuff.
And please, I'm not excusing or minimizing the BP Gulf oil spill. And, I'm not advocating dumping our waste overboard.
I am counting on fish and our smaller microbe buddies to clean up our mess.
Please send cards and accolades to them.
Aye.
Ships can carry dangerous cargo
In 1991 cholera was reported for the first time in this century in South America, starting in Peru. The outbreaks quickly grew to epidemic proportions and spread to other South American and Central American countries, and into Mexico. 1,099,882 cases and 10,453 deaths were reported in the Western Hemisphere between January 1991 and July 1995.
Although the South American strain of V. cholerae O1 has been isolated from Gulf Coast waters, presumably transmitted by ships off-loading contaminated ballast water, no cases of cholera have been attributed to fish or shellfish harvested from U.S. waters. However, over 100 cases of cholera caused by the South American strain have been reported in the United States. These cases were travelers returning from South America, or were associated with illegally smuggled, temperature-abused crustaceans from South America.
In the Autumn of 1993, a new strain, a non-O1 never before identified, was implicated in outbreaks of cholera in Bangladesh and India. The organism, V. cholerae serogroup O139 (Bengal), causes characteristic severe cholera symptoms. Previous illness with V. cholerae O1 does not confer immunity and the disease is now endemic. In the U.S., V. cholerae O139 has been implicated in one case, a traveller returning from India. The strain has not been reported in U.S. waters or shellfish.
In 1991 cholera was reported for the first time in this century in South America, starting in Peru. The outbreaks quickly grew to epidemic proportions and spread to other South American and Central American countries, and into Mexico. 1,099,882 cases and 10,453 deaths were reported in the Western Hemisphere between January 1991 and July 1995.
Although the South American strain of V. cholerae O1 has been isolated from Gulf Coast waters, presumably transmitted by ships off-loading contaminated ballast water, no cases of cholera have been attributed to fish or shellfish harvested from U.S. waters. However, over 100 cases of cholera caused by the South American strain have been reported in the United States. These cases were travelers returning from South America, or were associated with illegally smuggled, temperature-abused crustaceans from South America.
In the Autumn of 1993, a new strain, a non-O1 never before identified, was implicated in outbreaks of cholera in Bangladesh and India. The organism, V. cholerae serogroup O139 (Bengal), causes characteristic severe cholera symptoms. Previous illness with V. cholerae O1 does not confer immunity and the disease is now endemic. In the U.S., V. cholerae O139 has been implicated in one case, a traveller returning from India. The strain has not been reported in U.S. waters or shellfish.
I definitely agree and I'm not worried about urine in the water at all. It's generally pretty sterile. It's feces that matters and I think it's reasonable to prevent all boats (large and small) from discharging sewage into the water. Of course, I'd like to see those cabins and ESPECIALLY Victoria regulated also.AstoriaDave":3cxlmnjj said:Shellfish do pick up bacteria, viruses, etc. Roger, ever wondered how many of those older cabins along the Hood Canal have straight shots to the water? Victoria is a straight shot. So is all of Bamfield.rogerbum":3cxlmnjj said:One thing about most larger sources of pollution is that we generally know where they are at. For example, I don't think there are commercial shellfish operations immediately adjacent to sewage outflows from cities. However, small unregulated boats could dump their sewage anyplace (including near frequently harvested oyster beds). Many shellfish concentrate viruses so I don't think it's unreasonable to also regulate small boat owners in this regard.
For the record, the MSD goes along, even on day trips. OTOH, hard to believe the quantity of urine the typical hog line of boats during spring chinook season on the Columbia might materially impair its water quality. Poo, another matter, entirely, so to speak.
johnr":3mabm3p8 said:As a rule, I try not to defecate into the waters in which I swim, fish or drink if I can help it. Surprisingly, history has proven that we are not very good at self regulating when it comes to such things.
Ah!
We have seen the enemy and it is us...
Aye.