Overboard discharge from marine head ...
- Thread starter Scott T-Bird
- Start date
My question doesn't really relate to the legal aspect, because, as Gunni suggests, it would be a monumental waste of time and money to attempt to fight a cited violation and my inclination doesn't go that far. Besides, our valve is directed to the holding tank because we have State Police on our lake (they are the enforcement body) and I don't want to have any reason to be on the wrong side of them. I couldn't ever seem to avoid their attention with my ski boat, but in 10 years with a sailboat, it seems that they don't even know I exist ... but I'm still waiting for them to pay us a visit.
What stimulated my interest was the article that discussed the "treatment standard" of a Type I MSD as it relates to the dissipation of solids and treatment of bacteria. Maybe the discussion in the article was way too simplistic and didn't include some pertinent details but it seems that the basis is the assumption that all holding tanks will contain fecal matter with some regularity and KG makes a valid observation about the possible contamination.
However, I don't think that the State Police even have enforcement of MSD devices on their radar on our lake. Few boats have the facilities and nobody anchors out overnight, so it really isn't an issue. Quite simply, we just don't do #2 on the boat, and I doubt anybody else does either among the boaters on our lake. I am simply questioning, based on the science, if urinating is considered a pollutant which requires treatment whether it passes thru the holding tank or not. If it is not a pollutant, then would it be feasible to devise an alternate arrangement (such as Kito suggests).
What stimulated my interest was the article that discussed the "treatment standard" of a Type I MSD as it relates to the dissipation of solids and treatment of bacteria. Maybe the discussion in the article was way too simplistic and didn't include some pertinent details but it seems that the basis is the assumption that all holding tanks will contain fecal matter with some regularity and KG makes a valid observation about the possible contamination.
However, I don't think that the State Police even have enforcement of MSD devices on their radar on our lake. Few boats have the facilities and nobody anchors out overnight, so it really isn't an issue. Quite simply, we just don't do #2 on the boat, and I doubt anybody else does either among the boaters on our lake. I am simply questioning, based on the science, if urinating is considered a pollutant which requires treatment whether it passes thru the holding tank or not. If it is not a pollutant, then would it be feasible to devise an alternate arrangement (such as Kito suggests).
Urine is a sterile fluid. The problem is that kidney or urinary tract infection can complicate that. So can it passing by other 'problem' areas on the way out. So I would not hold my breath. But is it a problem? I just happily pee over the side.
On our small boat ladies use the marine toilet and plumbing that has NEVER EVER been used for anything else but pee. No paper. I fully accept that runs counter to the letter of the regs but I still sleep at night.
The answer to that old silly question is of course....if there is medium such as atmosphere then yes - sound waves will be generated. Comeon! Don't the bunnies and the bees have ears??? Space movies with sounds of ships blowing up drive me nuts too!
Anyway
Humans are a screwy bunch - we let billions of tons of untreated animal waste into all kinds of water systems and get nuts when someone poops in a reservoir....
The only place, among all the various ones to which I have traveled in a sailboat [or any other type of boat for that matter], where there has been visible enforcement of federal or state discharge laws is Avalon Harbor, Santa Catalina Island. As you arrive someone from the Harbor Master's office may come to the boat and request placement of a dye tab in each of the toilet bowls (if more than one) aboard. If ANY dye is seen coming out of the boat while visiting there you're [= boat] banned from Avalon for a year. Of course, if you refuse the dye tab(s) you're gone right away. As far as I know, however, that's the extent of it (i.e., no citations from law enforcement authorities; no reports, etc.).
Scott,
I hope your luck & your local REGS have no direct impact on you.
However my afterthought felt the need to point out, it's much different down here & in other areas. But, I feel that many coastal areas are more stringently policed. Thereby, I just wanted to make a general statement to detail the "What IF's" in general. If your area is laxed, so be it & the more power to you. If you need not worry, that's great. Other areas sadly, are more scrutinized.
How many boaters died in your area thus far this year? We had 62 deaths in 2013, the numbers for this year are not yet in.
I only wanted to present the worst case scenario but, simply peeing or discharging o'board (w/tank treatment) & warn of additional problems that may arise from this. My post was not aimed at your location but, I saw more REG confusion/non-conformance issues in this thread. I only wanted to show the BIGGER picture for all who may question regulations. Thereby, no one will be disappointed or, caught off-guard.
If relieving yourself or pumping from your tank, you WILL NOT hurt your waters. The OTHER BIG polluter problems/runoffs will.
But like I always say, "Information is Power, spread it around".
CR
CR
I hope your luck & your local REGS have no direct impact on you.
However my afterthought felt the need to point out, it's much different down here & in other areas. But, I feel that many coastal areas are more stringently policed. Thereby, I just wanted to make a general statement to detail the "What IF's" in general. If your area is laxed, so be it & the more power to you. If you need not worry, that's great. Other areas sadly, are more scrutinized.
How many boaters died in your area thus far this year? We had 62 deaths in 2013, the numbers for this year are not yet in.
I only wanted to present the worst case scenario but, simply peeing or discharging o'board (w/tank treatment) & warn of additional problems that may arise from this. My post was not aimed at your location but, I saw more REG confusion/non-conformance issues in this thread. I only wanted to show the BIGGER picture for all who may question regulations. Thereby, no one will be disappointed or, caught off-guard.
If relieving yourself or pumping from your tank, you WILL NOT hurt your waters. The OTHER BIG polluter problems/runoffs will.
But like I always say, "Information is Power, spread it around".
CR
CR
Lets be clear that these two things not the same and there is a HUGE difference between peeing over the side, and pumping out the contents of your holding tank in a lake or coastal water. Huge difference.
Scott, you might not like Stu's response, but it was the plain truth. Search and you will find.
This is not "by guess and by golly;" these are all waters of the United States. Yes, I have known of tickets handed out for open valves, and I have been checked.
Urine may be sterile as generated, but it isn't after storage.
Sorry. But there are reason why we have laws pertaining to water borne pathenogens. It's kind of like washing your hands in the restroom--common courtesy towards others. Some folks don't (don't get me started about answering the phone in the john--how do they wash the phone?) and that does not change my standard.
This is not "by guess and by golly;" these are all waters of the United States. Yes, I have known of tickets handed out for open valves, and I have been checked.
Urine may be sterile as generated, but it isn't after storage.
Sorry. But there are reason why we have laws pertaining to water borne pathenogens. It's kind of like washing your hands in the restroom--common courtesy towards others. Some folks don't (don't get me started about answering the phone in the john--how do they wash the phone?) and that does not change my standard.
City of Victoria BC currently discharges in excess of 30 million gals of RAW sewage per day into the strait of Juan de Fuca. Has for decades....
What do the Canadians say?
'The solution to pollution is dilution'??
True. Up to a point.
CaptRon- best check again. Florida says NINE miles offshore on the gulf side, three on the Atlantic
Read sixth paragraph-
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/cleanmarina/cva/boater_faq.htm
NY State law refers to this type of effluence as:
"(h) "Sewage" means all human body wastes and gray water. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/ENV/17/17/17-1745#sthash.PPDgSVj8.dpuf
"(h) "Sewage" means all human body wastes and gray water. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/ENV/17/17/17-1745#sthash.PPDgSVj8.dpuf
FYI:
While it is generally accepted that one of the earlier phenomena observed in enteric bacteria exposed to seawater is the loss of the ability to form colonies on solid media, there is a controversy in regard to the physiological state of the nonculturable cells. Some claim that VBNC [viable but nonculturable] cells are either dead or of no significance as they cannot be resuscitated if experimental procedures are carefully carried out. In contrast, other evidence suggests that they are not only viable but that the pathogenic among them may still be infective. Such an observation has a major significance in view of the worldwide practice of releasing non-disinfected wastewaters into the sea and its potential public health consequences. [See link.]
I guess the Canadians aren't the only ones! However, what possible difference could the comparatively few gallons of holding tank discharges make against numbers like that to communities on either side of the Strait?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2001.tb00589.x/full
The law is actually more about regulating the amount of bacteria that is dumped at any one time
the wording of the law doesn't differentiate whether you have a 2 gallon holding tank or a 500 gallon holding tank on your boat but the authorities (and a lot of us who aren't authorities) do not want any boat dumping large amounts of untreated sewage in a small area, and the best way to regulate it is too not let any boat do it anywhere without proper treatment.
But it is actually true that you can pee or defecate over the rail legally but it cannot be put into a container and then dumped from the container into the water.
there are no laws written saying that you can legally poop over the rail and there are no laws written that say you cannot, but the law is very clearly written about how the sewage must be treated before discharging from a container or holding tank to the water.
There has to be some way to regulate the dumping of sewage overboard that is fair and equal for all and I think they have the best solution in place, even though some parts of it, arguably, do not make total sense.
The way the law is written allows it to be very enforceable whenever a violation is found...
To reiterate, there is no Federal statute which permits that, however, the Clean Water Act, as amended, strictly prohibits either discharge, regardless of source
In other words, The source of such discharge is irrelevant. As all state statutes derive from Federal law and must be equally if not more restrictive, there is no place anywhere in the U.S. where any exceptions may exist.
In terms of bacterial count, Federal and state statutes do establish the basis for effluent limitations which are varied depending on the discharge source.
"The other other guy speed, why can't I?
A waste of ink. I agree, but I can't standthe logic.
One of the primary considerations when laws are being passed is how they are going to be enforced. It is much simpler and cost effective to prohibit the actual discharge of a tank no matter what its contents may be. There is adequate presumption that the holding tank is to be filled with human waste so it follows that the unauthorized discharge of its contents will be in violation of the law. Something the boat owner as well as the law enforcer can easily understand.