TWL: Discharge in the Keys
Dick and Keith ,
I fully agree that the actions of the EPA bureaucrats in DC seem to
reflect an uninformed attitude toward the contribution of polution , of
both air and water - by boaters .Further , That boat owners are easy
targets since we lack an organized or cordinated response to enlighten our
politicians and protect our interests .
( Though I disagree with several of their positions - I admire the
professional capabilities of the NRA in this reguard - which is both a
National, Regional and intensely Local - response capability )
Unfortunately these EPA blunders seem to have had the affect of setting
boaters to bickering between ourselves about the unfairness of it all -
rather than directing our collective ire in any productive way .
( One of the definations of Bitching - is to complain ineffectively -
and we, I believe we are caught up in that process - a total waste of time )
The Tragic Comic Theater of Meaningful Government Antipolution
Inaction - in the arena of regulation enforcement of large scale industrial,
mining , energy generation etc and municipal sewage poluters - I expect to
continue unless and until Local and National politicians feel their own re
election compromised .
It would seem however that the reporting of the continuing
effects of polution by Newspapers is not enough to raise the public ire
enough to accomplish this - and the rest of the medias local and nationals
eposodic expose approach is likewise ineffective - in spite of the very real
negative public health effects which are well documentated .
I have an elec san - and have written letters of support of the Saxton
bill to my reps - ane sincerely hope that ALL members of the TWL have done
the same . whether this will accomplish anything - darn if I know - but it
is better than Bitching about it :)
All the Best
Ken
Well, I'd agree that most regulatory agencies would opt for the "easy"
solution.
On the practical side, how DO they enforce a NDZ? Board a boat to see
how it's set up? If so, seems just as easy to verify a type I or II MSD
as to verify a holding tank. If you're going to verify that a discharge
seacock is locked closed, again, you can also verify the onboard MSD.
Same with plugging a through-hull. Simply saying "no one can discharge
in this area" isn't going to be effective, and can actually be counter
productive. I strongly believe that if Type I&II MSD's were allowed to
be used in these NDZ, more people would use them, and the manufacturers
would have an incentive to make lower cost and more effective models.
The more NDZ's that come into being, the less attractive the Type I&II
MSD's will be. I hate to think of the long term consequences of that.
Gregory Nicholls wrote:
"M. Kenneth McQuage" wrote:
Dick and Keith ,
I fully agree that the actions of the EPA bureaucrats in DC seem to
reflect an uninformed attitude toward the contribution of polution , of
both air and water - by boaters .Further , That boat owners are easy
targets since we lack an organized or cordinated response to enlighten our
politicians and protect our interests .
The attitude isn't uninformed it's simply easier to implement a total ban
than make exceptions for properly equipped boats. There's also the realisation
that properly equipped boats are in the minority. The only other alternative
would be to require all boats to be fitted with proper MSD's. Unrealistic
really.
I mean think about it in terms of flying. Would you fly commercial if an
airplane's nav system could really be screwed up by a walkman ?? Same thing.
It's easier to implement a total ban than one with caveats and exceptions.
G.
http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/trawler-world-list
--
Keith
Dogs have owners; Cats have staff.
"M. Kenneth McQuage" wrote:
Dick and Keith ,
I fully agree that the actions of the EPA bureaucrats in DC seem to
reflect an uninformed attitude toward the contribution of polution , of
both air and water - by boaters .Further , That boat owners are easy
targets since we lack an organized or cordinated response to enlighten our
politicians and protect our interests .
The attitude isn't uninformed it's simply easier to implement a total ban
than make exceptions for properly equipped boats. There's also the realisation
that properly equipped boats are in the minority. The only other alternative
would be to require all boats to be fitted with proper MSD's. Unrealistic
really.
I mean think about it in terms of flying. Would you fly commercial if an
airplane's nav system could really be screwed up by a walkman ?? Same thing.
It's easier to implement a total ban than one with caveats and exceptions.
G.
The attitude isn't uninformed it's simply easier to implement a total
ban
than make exceptions for properly equipped boats.
Hi Greg,
As I recall the EPA plan for improvement of Air Quality in the
Washington DC regional area initially included severe , but not total ,
restrictions on recreational boating on the Patomac River in the D.C. area -
complete with projections of how many tons of air pulutants from the ditry
exhausts of boats these restrictions would save .
The EPA Bureaucrats were most embarrased when informed of the
reality that - there is only a negligable amount of recreational boating in
that area - and that entire section was deleted without comment - but
deserving on the singular comment of Duh !
Reality checks do not seem to be the forte of Bureaucrats - of any
stripe - EPA or Otherwise - but then the entertainment of the governed is
one of the major functions of government !
All the Best
Ken
On the practical side, how DO they enforce a NDZ? Board a boat to see
how it's set up? If so, seems just as easy to verify a type I or II MSD as
to verify a holding tank. If you're going to verify that a discharge seacock
is locked closed, again, you can also verify the onboard MSD.<<<<
Just how easy would it to be to "verify" an MSD? Indeed what would it mean?
Just checking that it's there?
As I understand it from reading Peggy Hall's web site, your type I and II
MSD units are certified in prototype only. I take that to mean that at some
time prototype devices are tested at the factory, pass the test and then the
manufacturer is allowed to put a sticker on the device proclaiming that it
is an approved MSD. The presence of the sticker doesn't mean that any
particular MSD unit installed in any specific boat still meets (or ever
met), the certification criteria.
I believe the standards MSD units are supposed to meet include ensuring that
the effluent they produce contains no more than specified concentrations of
bacteria. Wouldn't adequate enforcement of MSD performance involve carrying
round Petri dishes or microscopes or something? By contrast enforcing a NDZ
would presumably only involve inspecting pipes and valves which could be
done by eyeball, or with the assistance of some flouricine dye.
A while ago someone was circulating an e-mail exhorting the list membership
to support the "Saxton Bill". I was extremely dubious about a number of the
arguments it contained, but I kept quiet, because it's a US issue, and I'm
sure you Yanks don't want some bloody Aussie minding your business. However
these arguments included this same unexamined assumption, that MSD
enforcement would be at least no more difficult or onerous than NDZ
enforcement.
Sydney Harbour is an NDZ by the way.
Regards, Robert Bryett
Sydney, Australia.
mailto:rbryett@mail.com
In Avalon Harbor on Catalina Island, the "poop police" board your vessel and
place dye tablets in all your heads. If you discharge into the harbor, your
vessel becomes encircled by a halo of bright red. This causes the poop cops
to board with pencils and ticket books, not the way to enjoy a week-end.
Ralph Salerno
M/V ANCORA
"May the farce be with you!"
On the practical side, how DO they enforce a NDZ? Board a boat to see
how it's set up? If so, seems just as easy to verify a type I or II MSD as
to verify a holding tank. If you're going to verify that a discharge
seacock
is locked closed, again, you can also verify the onboard MSD.<<<<
Just how easy would it to be to "verify" an MSD? Indeed what would it
mean?
Just checking that it's there?
When we bought our boat the forward head had a LectraSan control unit on the
bulkhead behind the toilet. It was powered up and looked operational.
Further investigation revealed the rest of the system was missing! The
toilet was plumbed into a holding tank, and the holding tank was plumbed
directly overboard. There was no deck pump out.
I don't think this was an intentional effort to deceive anyone. The PO did
most of his cruising in the ocean so pumping overboard was legal. I think
the system failed and he simply removed it and installed the holding tank.
The control unit was just never removed.
I pass this along just to illustrate that this looked like a proper MSD.
Unless you looked further and knew what you were looking at, you could be
fooled.
A while ago someone was circulating an e-mail exhorting the list
membership
to support the "Saxton Bill". I was extremely dubious about a number of
the
arguments it contained, but I kept quiet, because it's a US issue, and I'm
sure you Yanks don't want some bloody Aussie minding your business.
However
these arguments included this same unexamined assumption, that MSD
enforcement would be at least no more difficult or onerous than NDZ
enforcement.
I must admit I wasn't real interested in the Saxton Bill until this thread
came along, and I am not totally educated in the issues. Mainly because I
do not have a Type I or Type II MSD and I must pump out. I personally think
the NDZ is a good idea. I don't want to see waste floating around the
harbor whether it's treated or not. Seems to me it would be better to put
pressure on the government to change the rules about pumpout grants and make
sure the pumpouts are working and accessible.
Regards,
Andy
Andy & Linda Woods
Grand Folly
1970 Grand Banks 36 Classic
Georgetown, MD
awoods@surfbest.net
At 07:25 PM 6/28/02, you wrote:
When we bought our boat the forward head had a LectraSan control unit on the
bulkhead behind the toilet. It was powered up and looked operational.
Further investigation revealed the rest of the system was missing! The
toilet was plumbed into a holding tank, and the holding tank was plumbed
directly overboard. There was no deck pump out.
The last boat, a 37 footer with LectraSan. Found out after getting down the
coast that the LectraSan part wasn't working. Seems the boat had a
VacuFlush unit, which uses fresh water. The Lectra San requires salt water
or a separate salt pump unit to put salt into the system. This boat did not
have the salt unit. It would seem the LectraSan could be operating
properly. There was also a low voltage issue which has not been taken care
of even yet. But at least the system was set up to be dumped into the
holding tank.
Just when you think it is safe to go out on the water.
Capt. Mike Maurice
Near Portland Oregon.
In Avalon Harbor on Catalina Island, the "poop police" board your vessel
and place dye tablets in all your heads. If you discharge into the harbor,
your vessel becomes encircled by a halo of bright red. This causes the poop
cops to board with pencils and ticket books, not the way to enjoy a
week-end.<<<<
That's rather the point I was trying to make. NDZ enforcement involves a
fairly simple judgement:
IF anything is discharged at all THEN you're nicked!
Presumably "Saxton Bill" type enforcement would go:
IF anything is discharged AND the discharge fails to meet effluent standards
THEN you're nicked!
I don't see how effluent quality assessment could be made all that quick or
easy. How would the Poo Patrol take a sample (eeeew!), especially if the MSD
outlet was underwater? Then, how would they test it? I'm not a
bacteriologist so I don't know - mobile lab maybe?
Regards, Robert Bryett
Sydney, Australia.
mailto:rbryett@mail.com
Hi All:
I have been following this thread keenly. Tamara B is in the yard having
major re-fit work done. We have intentionally NOT addressed the heads
(2) situation because of the uncertainty about the future regulations.
Tamara B currently has 2 X 40g holding tanks, one for each head. There
is NO pumpout facility as such, there are 2 "pump out" pumps which
discharge the holding tanks to the sea. The current plan is to just pass
the 3 mile line once a week, and clear the tanks (we will be full-time
live-aboards, and on-the-go almost constantly).
If TypeII MSD's were legal, I would install them between the head and
the holding tanks; but the legality of this setup seems to be spotty and
uncertain at best.
Given what has been reported here and elsewhere about the availability
and condition of "pumpout" facilities, it seems a waste of time and
money to even have external pumpout hoses and deck fittings installed!
Our intended range of operation is from Main, the east-coast, the
Caribbean, Central and South America.
Questions....
-
Will Tamara B's setup present a legal problem within her intended
cruising range? -
Will the lack of dock-side pumpout facilities be viewed as
non-compliance with current standards? -
Is the "3-mile" line rule pretty much standard within her range?
-
Since Tamara B was built in 1979, is there some "grandfathering" with
regard to the rules?
Regards
Bob
--