Lectra San Grandfathered?

Peggie Hall HeadMistress · Nov 29, 2009

Federal law does grandfather treatment devices

The boat must have been built before 1980 and the device must have been installed before 1978 and still be working to spec. The mfr can supply a placard...to get one, you'd have to furnish the serial # from the device and HIN for the boat. The applicable federal law is 40 CFR 140.3 40 CFR 140 (Click on "standard") Paragraphs (b) - (f).

But in your case, it's a moot point...'cuz your waters are NOT "no discharge"...not even Clear Lake. In fact, there are only two NDZs on whole Gulf--the FL Keys and Destin Harbor...the discharge of treated waste from a CG certified Type I or II is legal everywhere else. So it doesn't matter how old your boat is, or how old your LS is or when it was installed in the boat...you can use it

Btw..."no discharge" ONLY applies to toilet waste...it does not include gray water (galley, bath and shower water).

Head Master18695 · Dec 7, 2009

Re: Thanks for the feedback

Here's a list of all the No Discharge Zones in the U.s., from the EPA website:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/regulatory/vessel_sewage/vsdnozone.html#tx

Peggie Hall HeadMistress · Dec 9, 2009

The problem with that idea is...

Mike Hancock said:
I am giving some thought to the Sealand Sanipottie MSD (5 gallon). I will rig it for pumpout. I am even considering connecting it to a small holding tank via a manual pump. The small holding tank can be pumped out or discharged overboard where legal.

You'd have be at least 3 miles offshore OUTSIDE of Galveston Bay to dump the tank legally.

There are enough large trawlers and yachts equipped with treatment devices in your waters, including several people I know personally, that your being hassled should be minimal.

The hassling that you are getting is most likely because too few owners of sailboats and smaller boats even know that treatment devices exist. They equate "can't flush the toilet directly overboard" with "no discharge" because they think a holding tank is the only option. In fact, I'd be surprised if you've actually been told by any law enforcement that your waters are "no discharge"...it's other boat owners who are telling you that law enforcement says so.

So keep the LS and use it in good health!

Peggie Hall HeadMistress · Dec 10, 2009

Wise decision!

Mike Hancock said:
I have not talked to any law enforcement. Just a number of other boaters. I think that I will just use it and hope for the best.

That's what I'd do!

Mike Hancock said:
This thing has gone unused for at least 2 years. Has not even been powered up. Any suggestions for starting it up and testing it? Anything to check out first? As I said, it is old. Has the old mechanical timer and such.

You need to have a chat with Vic Willman at Raritan BEFORE you even THINK trying to fire it up again...'cuz doing the wrong thing can break what wasn't broke. He's their tech services manager, been there 36 years, and has forgotten more about everything they've ever made than I or anyone else will ever learn...he's MY guru there! 800-352-5630 x 6.

rickmorel · Dec 15, 2009

Re: Federal law does grandfather treatment devices

Mike and Peggy,

Clear Lake is an NDZ and they're trying to get all Texas coastal waters declared.

The below is from a marina owner I posed the question to via email. He called the EPA an was told:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Steve Painter at the EPA Region 6 Water Protection Division, at the State's request in 1996, Clear Lake was designated as a NDZ but for some reason it was never published in the federal register and it doesn't show on EPA website. He informed me that this was an oversight and that action will be taken to correct it. Meanwhile, the State is working to get all coastal waters within the 3 mile limit to be designated no discharge areas. I got the impression that they were waiting to see if this could clear bureaucratic hurdles prior publishing the whole coast as a NDZ in the federal register.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Valkyrie' was built in '63 and has a first model, well maintained Lectra/San. I'm planning on sending in the serial number for the placard.

Peggy, you mentioned that and the HIN number. We don't have an HIN. Would the hull number (3 BTW) do?

Rick

kloudie1 · Dec 15, 2009

Ask and it shall be given !
"Teacher.. You forgot to give us homework ! "

Peggie Hall HeadMistress · Dec 16, 2009

rickmorel said:
Clear Lake is an NDZ and they're trying to get all Texas coastal waters declared. The below is from a marina owner I posed the question to via email. He called the EPA and was told...

He was told a bunch of wishful thinking! 40 CFR 140.3 sayeth:
"Waters where a certified marine sanitation device permitting discharge is allowed
include coastal waters and estuaries, the Great Lakes and inter-
connected waterways, fresh-water lakes and impoundments accessible
through locks, and other flowing waters that are navigable interstate by
vessels subject to this regulation."

Clear Lake is a navigable insterstate waterway with egress to the sea, under USCG jurisdiction. It could not have been designated NDZ by TX, nor could the EPA have done it without a public comment period and a whole rigamaroll...trust me it has NOT been left off the published list year after year after year after year ACCIDENTALLY!

Email me and I'll give you the email address for a friend of mine who has 46' kadey-Krogen trawler on Clear Lake, equipped with Lectra/San.

rickmorel said:
Valkyrie' was built in '63 and has a first model, well maintained Lectra/San.
I'm planning on sending in the serial number for the placardPeggy, you mentioned that
and the HIN number. We don't have an HIN. Would the hull number (3 BTW) do?

I forgot that boats built in the 60s don't have HINs...so send 'em all you have,
especially any original equipment serial numbers. And btw...send it all to Vic Willman at the NJ plant...don't send to the FL plant.

rickmorel · Dec 17, 2009

Peggie Hall-HeadMistress said:
He was told a bunch of wishful thinking! 40 CFR 140.3 sayeth:
(SNIP)
Clear Lake is a navigable insterstate waterway with egress to the sea, under USCG jurisdiction. It could not have been designated NDZ by TX, nor could the EPA have done it without a public comment period and a whole rigamaroll...trust me it has NOT been left off the published list year after year after year after year ACCIDENTALLY!
(SNIP)
I forgot that boats built in the 60s don't have HINs...so send 'em all you have,
especially any original equipment serial numbers. And btw...send it all to Vic Willman at the NJ plant...don't send to the FL plant.

I believe you! Really, I do!

I had done a pretty extensive search re Clear Lake and the only things I found that said it was were unofficial sources. I emailed one of those and that's where the "he called EPA" came from. It was kind of an excercise since we have no desire nor plans to go there and couldn't if we wanted to because of our draft.

I've emailed Mr. Vic with all my info, including boat documentation number.

I sure wish Sen. Saxton's bill to tighten the Type I and II standards and do away with NDZ's hadn't just faded away a few years back.

All of this got me thinking and checking and it seems to me NDZ's increase pollution. Here's why.

I found the outflow bacteria count requirements for municipal waste water plants is the same as the Type I MSD - 1,000 / 100 ML and more than a Type II - 200 / 100 ML. Maybe that's where they got that original 1,000 / 100 ML figure?

These figures are the max allowable, but even if we use them as absolute, the vessels with Type II MSD's are adding bacteria by having to hold and pump out, going though the local municipal wastewater system. I see this as increasing pollution overall. In the real world municipal wastewater plants rarely meet the requirements, according to a local waste water plant engineer. They try, but are usually overloaded. In fact a whole new plant was built locally because the fines finally reached an amount to make it cost effective. There has been a noticable difference in water quality in the local waterways since the new plant.

On the other hand, the Saxton bill pointed out that the test data for the MSD's were 0 to 8, as I recall. I remember the new max was to be set at 10 / 100 ML. So with the problems municpal plants have meeting the standard at least 100 times the bacteria are going into the water a few days after the holding tank is pumped vs using the Lectra/San.

Thanks, Peggie, for all the good info!

Rick

rickmorel · Dec 17, 2009

Confusion reigns!

Below is part of the reply from Vic Willman to my email for the "exemption" placard.

------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your e-mail message from yesterday. I'm sorry, but the
Lectra/San has never been exempted from NDZ's. We have no placard to offer,
other than the actual sticker that is already on your unit, with the serial
number and the USCG certification number. The referenced placards were only
offered in the mid-1970's, when many Lectra/San units had been sold and were
put in use, before the units actually received Coast Guard certification.
But after that, no placards have been offered.

A No Discharge Zone is just that - in those areas, no discharge from a
boat's toilet may be discharged into the water regardless of whether it's
been treated or not. The Lectra/San is legal for use inside the 3 mile
coastal limit, in all areas OTHER than a No Discharge Zone. Outside the 3
mile limit, the toilet may legally be pumped directly overboard.

As long as your Lectra/San is maintained in working order, up to factory
specs, it may continue to be used for the life of the device. That is the
misunderstood "grandfather clause" that is often bandied about. The law
went into effect in March of 1980, and remains in effect to date. Your
unit, having been manufactured before 1980, may be legally used in all areas
where a Type I device is permitted - as long as it performs up to factory
specs.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Studying 40 CFR 140.3 40 CFR 140, which is tough reading, does appear to confirm this. It seems the only exemption is to paragraph

(a) (1) In freshwater lakes, freshwater reservoirs or other freshwater impoundments whose inlets or outlets are such as to prevent the ingress or egress by vessel traffic ... etc

And to Paragraph (d) which refers to certification standards.

I would love to find out I'm wrong and find something to convince the water police in the Florida Keys or anywhere.

Rick

Head Master18695 · Dec 17, 2009

Part of the problem is that the law was written in the 1970's, had been scheduled to be implemented in 1975, then put off to 1978, and was finally implemented in 1980. (Sounds kinda like the present healthcare situation, doesn't it? Remember? It was supposed to become law by Labor Day, then Thanksgiving, now Christmas...and it will probably drag out until well beyond the first of January.) In the 1970's it was also chaos, when each state had its own unique approach to marine sanitation, many of which conflicted from the regulations in a neighboring state. Back then, if a boat owner in New York decided to take his boat south to Florida for the winter by water, he would come under the jurisdiction of 9 different states - and many different, and often conflicting laws. In one state he would be fine. In the next state along the way, he risked being jailed. So the feds decided to make it better... Ha!

To make matters worse, the law has been amended and modified a number of times between then and now - to the point where even the Coast Guard isn't fully sure what they're trying to enforce. I get several calls a year from various Coast Guard stations throughout the country, with questions about the marine sanitation laws. Their copies of the various statutes aren't always the most recent, and they are often confused about it.

At that time, the EPA set up the standards and the Coast Guard was charged with enforcing them. In the intervening years, with budget cuts, personnel cuts and the whole situation we're all aware of, the Coast Guard found they had a real red herring on their hands. They were much more interested in catching drug runners, terrorists, illegal aliens trying to sneak into the country and the like, and weren't really interested in becoming "potty-police." So some of the enforcement was turned over to the individual states and even, in a few cases, to the local Coast Guard Auxiliary. Now, 35 years later, the marine sanitation law has become almost like the Holy Bible. If 40 different people read it, you get 40 different interpretations.

By way of credentials, I am Vic Willman, with Raritan Engineering Company's Tech Support Department. Raritan is the manufacturer of the discontinued Lectra/San and current Electro-Scan Type I marine sanitation systems. I have been with Raritan for a little over 38 years, and have been working with the Lectra/San-based product for most of that time. I merely conveyed my understanding of the law to Rick Morel. I agree that is is ambiguous in places, and difficult to convert to plain language that everyone can understand. But that's how the politicians want it...

Peggie Hall HeadMistress · Dec 18, 2009

Rick, all that really should matter to you is...

Vic and I had a chat yesterday after I read your last post...the law's wording in the CFR is VERY ambiguous because its original intent changed after it was written. (Which gives you an idea of what's likely to happen to any health care "reform" bill!)... but it doesn't matter how confusing the law may be when it comes to any "grandfathering because your waters are NOT "no discharge," so it doesn't matter how old your boat is, or how old your Lectra/San is or when it was installed...you could even buy and install a new one today and legally use it in lieu of a holding tank in any waters that are not specifically designated "no discharge"...and Destin Harbor or the FL Keys are the only two on the entire Gulf.

rickmorel · Dec 18, 2009

RE: Rick, all that really should matter to you is...

Peggie Hall-HeadMistress said:
Vic and I had a chat yesterday after I read your last post...the law's wording in the CFR is VERY ambiguous because its original intent changed after it was written. (Which gives you an idea of what's likely to happen to any health care "reform" bill!)... but it doesn't matter how confusing the law may be when it comes to any "grandfathering because your waters are NOT "no discharge," so it doesn't matter how old your boat is, or how old your Lectra/San is or when it was installed...you could even buy and install a new one today and legally use it in lieu of a holding tank in any waters that are not specifically designated "no discharge"...and Destin Harbor or the FL Keys are the only two on the entire Gulf.

Right, Peggie. Believe me I'm well aware of what you're saying. I did have a new Lectra/San I bought in 2000 on another boat. I would have bought another for the current boat if it hadn't had one.

The reason I jumped on all this after Mike's original post was for the Florida Keys, which were not an NDZ back then when we spent some time, and possibly some of the East Coast states that have managed to get all their coastal waters declared NDZ's.

The problem with our boat, which is our floating home, is there's really no place to put a decent sized holding tank for NDZ's without taking up much needed storage. She's a 41-footer, but is very long and lean. I _might_ be able to get an 8 or 10 gallon one into the space under the forward berth or maybe the same size under the head sole by cutting it out. Probably have to cut the berth as well since there's a fairly small opening.

We were going to leave for the Bahamas and beyond last November, but wound up coming back to Louisiana to take care of my 97 year old father-in-law when his care giver took off. Don't know when we'll be done with this freely taken on obligation, but will need something to get through the keys. We had thought of getting a cheap porta-pottie for that part and probably will do that. It can live on deck on the way

On the other hand, it may be worth it to go though all the trouble, expense and lost of space to just put in a holding tank, along with an overboard pump, of whatever size can be crammed in. We would like to head up the East coast at some time.

It's so @#$!#$ agravating that the Type I and II MSD's work so well and have such "clean" output and there are areas where they can't be used. Living aboard cruising is so nice not having to search out almost nonexistent pump outs around here and other places we've cruised. Same for marinas where we've stayed a while. The last one had about 20 live aboards and the nearest pump out was 60 miles away!

Thanks for everything. It's been interesting!

Rick

Rick D · Dec 18, 2009

Well, I'll Be.... re: Calif NDZ

Jeesh, everyone in authority has told me that all of SoCal is NDZ. Now I look at the list and a major part of SoCal is NOT represented by the Fed's notices: Long Beach, LA, Redondo, Two Harbors et al, Marina del Rey, and ports north. I would have had a type one a long time ago when in MDR with one pump out for 6000 boats which was broken a big chunk of time. Now that I am in LB, with available and operable facilities there is no such need. Interestingly, the marinas and harbors are under quite a bit of pressure to implement a dye tablet enforcement procedure to reduce illegal discharges. But, I wouldn't think a Type one devise would remove the dye. In fact, I wonder if it would damage it. However, the practical logistics of doing so would appear to make that unlikely. Every marina I am aware of has a no discharge requirement within the rental agreement.

rickmorel · Dec 18, 2009

Rick D said:
Jeesh, everyone in authority has told me that all of SoCal is NDZ. Now I look at the list and a major part of SoCal is NOT represented by the Fed's notices: Long Beach, LA, Redondo, Two Harbors et al, Marina del Rey, and ports north. I would have had a type one a long time ago when in MDR with one pump out for 6000 boats which was broken a big chunk of time. Now that I am in LB, with available and operable facilities there is no such need. Interestingly, the marinas and harbors are under quite a bit of pressure to implement a dye tablet enforcement procedure to reduce illegal discharges. But, I wouldn't think a Type one devise would remove the dye. In fact, I wonder if it would damage it. However, the practical logistics of doing so would appear to make that unlikely. Every marina I am aware of has a no discharge requirement within the rental agreement.

Arrrrggghhhh. This subject always winds up getting me PO'ed big time! Maybe when we hit the Caribbean we'll just throw our Lectra/San overboard and stay there.....

I've heard of marinas having the no discharge requirement, but have never run into one Texas to Florida. In fact, most are happy when they learn we have a Lectra/San.

I don't know if a dye tablet would damage a Type I or II, but I imagine ours would make a lot of noise grinding up the tablet! I do know nobody is going to put one in.

I've tried a search to see what countries have similar laws re sewage discharge. No luck, everything comes back USA, no matter what search terms I use. I seem to recall Canada has similar and that there was talk a while back in Australia.

Rick