Peggy, Raritan Engineering markets a waste treatment device called LectraSan MC. Their site seems to claim that waste treated with this system can be safely discharged directly into waterways and the holding tank can be eliminated - thus saving space. This doesn't sound quite Kosher to me. Am I missing something? S.
- Status
You must be new to boating 
The Lectra/San is a CG certified Type I MSD (treatment device) that's been around since the late '60s--even before there WERE any marine sanitation laws...the "MC" version is only the latest It treats to a level that not only meets, but far exceeds, federal standards for the discharge of waste overboard...and is legal for use in all waters except those specifically designated "no discharge." Although the Lectra/San is the best and most popular Type I MSD, it's not the only one...and there's a bill pending in Congress that would make almost all of them--including the Lectra/San--legal for use in ALL waters, including those that are "no discharge." To bring yourself up to speed on marine sanitation laws and equipment, read the article at the attached link as well as the articles here in the Head Mistress forum Reference Library (on the right side of the forum homepage). And I'm always glad to answer questions...that's why I'm here.
The Lectra/San is a CG certified Type I MSD (treatment device) that's been around since the late '60s--even before there WERE any marine sanitation laws...the "MC" version is only the latest It treats to a level that not only meets, but far exceeds, federal standards for the discharge of waste overboard...and is legal for use in all waters except those specifically designated "no discharge." Although the Lectra/San is the best and most popular Type I MSD, it's not the only one...and there's a bill pending in Congress that would make almost all of them--including the Lectra/San--legal for use in ALL waters, including those that are "no discharge." To bring yourself up to speed on marine sanitation laws and equipment, read the article at the attached link as well as the articles here in the Head Mistress forum Reference Library (on the right side of the forum homepage). And I'm always glad to answer questions...that's why I'm here.
Peggy, about that bill pending in Congress
Where you said it would make Type I MSD legal for use in ALL waters, including those that are "no discharge." Do you think this will also be legal in places like Lake George, NY? Do you think this will be able to be overridden by state statutes? Or do you think the Federal statute would be the overiding law. I am not a constitutional lawyer so I am not sure. I am just curious as I have a freind who keeps a boat on Lake George. Geez I hate to "dredge" (pun intented) up this subject again on the legality of discharge laws......but if anyone would know, its you.
Where you said it would make Type I MSD legal for use in ALL waters, including those that are "no discharge." Do you think this will also be legal in places like Lake George, NY? Do you think this will be able to be overridden by state statutes? Or do you think the Federal statute would be the overiding law. I am not a constitutional lawyer so I am not sure. I am just curious as I have a freind who keeps a boat on Lake George. Geez I hate to "dredge" (pun intented) up this subject again on the legality of discharge laws......but if anyone would know, its you.
I doubt if it would affect George 'n Winnepesaukee
Their local ordinances prohibiting ANY discharge--including gray water--pre-date the Federal Water Pollution Act by a number of years. They don't care what the feds do...their rules aren't gonna change. HR 1730 ("The Saxton House MSD Bill") isn't a whole new marine sanitation law...it only proposes to make two changes in the existing law--the first changes since it was enacted in 1977: to reduce the allowable bacteria count in the discharge from Type I and II MSDs from < 1,000/100 mililiter to < 10, and allow vessels equipped with a device that meets that standard to use them in ALL US waters, even those designated "no discharge." "Private" lakes--for instance, those owned by utilities--that have never been under federal or state jurisdiction, and don't allow any discharge of anything (some don't even allow boats with cabins) may be exceptions. Most of arguments against treatment and in favor of holding tanks start from a false premise: that because current law only requires that a Type I reduce bacteria count to <1000, that's all any Type I is able to achieve. In fact, almost all of 'em already meet the proposed new standard of <10...So all that will be required of most mfrs of Type I and II devices is recertification by the CG. Even better, it's hoped that this will FINALLY provide the incentive that was never there for the mfrs when it looked as if all boats everywhere would eventually have to have nothing but holding tanks to develop smaller, less expensive, and less power-hungry treatment devices. This bill still needs support...so write your US Congressperson to ask for it.
Their local ordinances prohibiting ANY discharge--including gray water--pre-date the Federal Water Pollution Act by a number of years. They don't care what the feds do...their rules aren't gonna change. HR 1730 ("The Saxton House MSD Bill") isn't a whole new marine sanitation law...it only proposes to make two changes in the existing law--the first changes since it was enacted in 1977: to reduce the allowable bacteria count in the discharge from Type I and II MSDs from < 1,000/100 mililiter to < 10, and allow vessels equipped with a device that meets that standard to use them in ALL US waters, even those designated "no discharge." "Private" lakes--for instance, those owned by utilities--that have never been under federal or state jurisdiction, and don't allow any discharge of anything (some don't even allow boats with cabins) may be exceptions. Most of arguments against treatment and in favor of holding tanks start from a false premise: that because current law only requires that a Type I reduce bacteria count to <1000, that's all any Type I is able to achieve. In fact, almost all of 'em already meet the proposed new standard of <10...So all that will be required of most mfrs of Type I and II devices is recertification by the CG. Even better, it's hoped that this will FINALLY provide the incentive that was never there for the mfrs when it looked as if all boats everywhere would eventually have to have nothing but holding tanks to develop smaller, less expensive, and less power-hungry treatment devices. This bill still needs support...so write your US Congressperson to ask for it.
- Status