Do the potty police have science on their side?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

You really have no idea, do you, as to whether old or newly mfg. Type 1's or 2's meet "spec" or otherwise create discharge that is harmful to the environment.

You really have some wierd attention span.

We've just been immersed in the details of the ElectroSan, one of which is its fecal coliform numbers. Do you need a minute to look it up?

Raritan says < 20 per 100 ml. If true, thats near a couple of orders of magnitude better than the EPA type 1 standard of 1000 per 100 ml.



And I don't think the EPA promised owners of type 1 or 2 systems that they'd have licence forever to dump anywhere, or that standards wouldn't ever be revisited.

...thinwater's posts suggest that at least one of these NDZs -- Puget Sound -- may have been created for reasons other than what the law intends & requires, namely a determination that the body of water requires a greater level of environmental protection.

Are you nuts? Thinwater's explanation makes it clear that they intended to put in environmental protection, using the only tools they had... especially given the current political climate.

Despite all the street corner shouting, posturing, and , there has been no evidence presented thus far that these large, tidal, saltwater bodies of water primarily at issue are or would be negatively impacted by discharge from Type 1 & 2 MSDs which meet these EPA standards....


Again, where is the science supporting a conclusion that these large bodies of water require greater levels of protection as the law requires? ... "Do the potty police have science on their side?"

This is my third time to post this link, and since you steadfastly refuse to read it, I guess I'll have to cut and paste:

An example of an effective, well researched NDZ is in Avalon Harbor, California which is a pleasure boat harbor that once had fecal coliform counts of 16,000 organisms per 100 mL. After establishing an NDZ the counts dropped to 23 organisms per 100 mL. They had very strict enforcement which included a dye tablet dropped into the on-board toilet by representatives of the Harbormaster’s Office. When sewage is discharged the fluorescent dye shows up in the water, and a fine is issued to the violator.

Another study was conducted in Rhode Island’s Great Salt Pond which was designated as a NDZ in 1993. Within three years of no sewage discharge, shellfish beds were able to reopened after over a decade of being closed for high fecal coliform bacteria counts during the peak boating season (Stephenson, 2004). Lower nutrients also meant there were fewer algal blooms (Stephenson, 2004).

A marina owner in Herring Bay, Maryland said that having an NDZ has resulted in cleaner water which has helped the marina’s business (Stephenson, 2004). In Newport Bay in California, officials report significant economic value of the cleaner water saying that clean water has helped property values, encouraged tourism, and sport and commercial fishing (Stephenson, 2004). Rhode Island officials say that an NDZ has helped their offshore clamming industry (Stephenson, 2004).

In addition to the physical benefits of an NDZ, there are is also a major fringe benefit of improved environmental stewardship. Reports by local, state and EPA officials all cite an increase in awareness and care for the environment from boaters and marina owners. This often comes from peer pressuring from between boaters to make sure that others do not discharge.

It seems to be working there...

You claim that NDZs aren't for the environment, and that they make the environment worse. Ok, prove it.

Read up a bit on how much water shellfish can process in a day, extracting retaining and concentrating everything. Human pathogens, undigested drugs, intestinal parasites... Bon appetit.

The science IS there. Your "stewardship" notwithstanding...

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

......[INDENT] [I]An example of an effective, well researched NDZ is in Avalon Harbor, California which is a pleasure boat harbor that once had fecal coliform counts of 16,000 organisms per 100 mL. After establishing an NDZ the counts dropped to 23 organisms per 100 mL. They had very strict enforcement which included a dye tablet dropped into the on-board toilet by representatives of the Harbormaster’s Office. When sewage is discharged the fluorescent dye shows up in the water, and a fine is issued to the violator.

...

That is a pretty misleading statement. It implies that the cleanup was due to the NDZ actions. The NDZ was supportive of the cleanup, but many other major actions had to occur to get the good result. The harbor has been extensively studied and document. Here's one doc covering history and additional cleanup long after the NDZ.
http://www.cityofavalon.com/filestor...compressed.pdf

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

[ ]
As you say, cruisers are just a small part of the whole boating community. The NDZ laws apply to ALL boats. And to other sources of discharge as well.

btw, The idea of NDZ is no sewage, not even disinfected sewage.

If an NDZ applies to ALL boats AND to other sources of discharge as well, that would INCLUDE MUNICIPAL SEWAGE PLANTS !!!


What a crock.

[Exile]

[QUOTE=Lake-Effect;2751264]You really have some wierd attention span.

We've just been immersed in the details of the ElectroSan, one of which is its fecal coliform numbers. Do you need a minute to look it up?

Raritan says < 20 per 100 ml. If true, thats near a couple of orders of magnitude better than the EPA type 1 standard of 1000 per 100 ml.

It's both misleading & really wastes everyone's time to respond to a comment you've truncated so its meaning is changed. It also makes you the all-time champ of strawman arguments throughout this thread. Try and stick to the issues being raised, not how you personally want those same issues to be framed. In relevant part, here's what I wrote in full:

Originally Posted by Exile

You really have no idea, do you, as to whether old or newly mfg. Type 1's or 2's meet "spec" or otherwise create discharge that is harmful to the environment. As usual, you are assuming, without evidence, that just because the newer models discharge fewer pathogens it necessarily follows that the water will become more polluted. (Hint: it's the concentration/dilution thing again). The "spec" is established by the EPA not the mfg., and presumably takes into account the low volume as compared to, for e.g., a municipal sewage plant. * * * Mfgs. have to meet specs created by EPA scientists, not uninformed members of the public with too much time on their hands and an obvious political agenda.

My comment never questioned whether Raritan has improved their systems. Obviously they have. My point was that the improvements don't mean the old ones don't continue to meet the EPA spec. More importantly, it also doesn't mean that the old ones, even though they allow for more harmful pathogens, necessarily create more harmful pollution (esp. in saltwater). Obviously you still don't seem to understand dilution, despite my "Hint."

And I don't think the EPA promised owners of type 1 or 2 systems that they'd have licence forever to dump anywhere, or that standards wouldn't ever be revisited.

I'm sure they didn't. But I'm also sure the boat owners didn't expect they'd later be legally foreclosed from using their heads throughout their entire primary cruising grounds. Your point?

Are you nuts? Thinwater's explanation makes it clear that they intended to put in environmental protection, using the only tools they had... especially given the current political climate.

I'm sure thinwater will chime in if either one of us mischaracterized his explanation for how the NDZ in Puget Sound came about. I read about a jurisdictional problem in the defn. of the 3-mile limit that was allowing cruise ships -- to cite one example he mentioned -- to discharge as if they were offshore. This would mean that all vessels would be deemed outside the 3-mile limit and could therefore legally discharge. What I did NOT read was that discharge from private recreational vessels -- treated or not -- was part of the problem. That's why I suggested that making the entirety of the Sound an NDZ in order to better control pollution from large commercial ships seemed overbroad and unfairly targeted small vessels with EPA-approved Type 1's & 2's. If you find some science that says small private vessels are polluting Puget Sound beyond acceptable EPA standards then please do let us know.

This is my third time to post this link, and since you steadfastly refuse to read it, I guess I'll have to cut and paste:

An example of an effective, well researched NDZ is in Avalon Harbor, California which is a pleasure boat harbor that once had fecal coliform counts of 16,000 organisms per 100 mL. After establishing an NDZ the counts dropped to 23 organisms per 100 mL. They had very strict enforcement which included a dye tablet dropped into the on-board toilet by representatives of the Harbormaster’s Office. When sewage is discharged the fluorescent dye shows up in the water, and a fine is issued to the violator.

Another study was conducted in Rhode Island’s Great Salt Pond which was designated as a NDZ in 1993. Within three years of no sewage discharge, shellfish beds were able to reopened after over a decade of being closed for high fecal coliform bacteria counts during the peak boating season (Stephenson, 2004). Lower nutrients also meant there were fewer algal blooms (Stephenson, 2004).

You've got to be kidding. Both examples of small, confined anchorages, nothing even close to the large bodies of water being discussed. And neither example says anything about treated sewage being the problem, only discharged sewage generally, i.e. predominantly untreated sewage. I read your article the first time, but I doubt posting it a 4th will make it any more relevant or on point.

A marina owner in Herring Bay, Maryland said that having an NDZ has resulted in cleaner water which has helped the marina’s business (Stephenson, 2004). In Newport Bay in California, officials report significant economic value of the cleaner water saying that clean water has helped property values, encouraged tourism, and sport and commercial fishing (Stephenson, 2004). Rhode Island officials say that an NDZ has helped their offshore clamming industry (Stephenson, 2004).

Yup, we know that inland waters have been getting cleaner for decades now, whether it's Lake Erie, the East River in NYC, wetlands areas, or coastal bays & sounds. And much of the credit goes to the Clean Water Act passed in the 1970's, the same Act which established through EPA regulation the exception for onboard treatment systems, and the same Act which authorized the EPA to create NDZs, but only upon a determination that greater environmental protection was needed. So I don't dispute the marina owner in Herring Bay or the govt officials pointing out the benefits of cleaner waters, but are you saying your "science" supports a conclusion that prohibiting the discharge of onboard treated sewage has materially contributed to these positive results? Really? Is your article really about environmental "science" or partisan advocacy? Or is the problem that you're unable to distinguish between the two?

In addition to the physical benefits of an NDZ, there are is also a major fringe benefit of improved environmental stewardship. Reports by local, state and EPA officials all cite an increase in awareness and care for the environment from boaters and marina owners. This often comes from peer pressuring from between boaters to make sure that others do not discharge.

We've covered this ground before, but the vast majority of boaters have holding tanks and so are already prohibited from discharging inland of 3 miles. NDZs have zero impact on that prohibition. So your "science," from an article published by a private conservation organization, attributes these reports of "improved environmental stewardship" to the small no. of boaters who are prohibited from discharging their treated sewage in NDZs?? Just so you're not tempted to misconstrue this one too, I don't question the increased awareness, likely greater compliance, cleaner water, etc., but it makes little sense that it comes from the mere prohibition on discharging treated sewage due to the establishment of NDZs. Where's your "science" on that one?

It seems to be working there...

What needs to work is a scientific justification for an NDZ in order to conform with the Clean Water Act & its regs, namely when a determination is made that existing standards are not sufficient to protect the waters and so additional protection is necessary. I'm still not seeing that for the large bodies of water we're mainly discussing, and your studies from small crowded anchorages that have been cleaned up don't discuss what impact, if any, the prohibition on treated sewage from small recreational vessels has made. Maybe you should have stuck with city dog parks & that famously fun & sunny weekend off Ft. Walton Beach??

You claim that NDZs aren't for the environment, and that they make the environment worse. Ok, prove it.

Is that what I've claimed? Or are we just picking sides here. You know, the 'pro vs. anti-environment teams'. Nah, I don't think I'm going to waste time responding to another one of your juvenile strawman games.

Read up a bit on how much water shellfish can process in a day, extracting retaining and concentrating everything. Human pathogens, undigested drugs, intestinal parasites... Bon appetit.

An avg. of 50 gals. for a single oyster is the number I've often read. That's why science believes restoring the oyster population from over-harvesting is a priority when it comes to cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay. But apparently the EPA doesn't believe that discharge from onboard treatment systems is interfering with the oysters' comeback since NDZs have only been established in a few small, confined areas off the Bay. Let us know when you find out why Puget Sound & Narragansett Bay are more environmentally fragile and thus more deserving of the NDZ designation than the Chesapeake. We can wait. Heck, we've already waited this long.

The science IS there. Your "stewardship" notwithstanding...

So says the urban dweller with a small daysailor and a convenient pump out facility nearby, and who's land-borne sewage, water, garbage, heat, electricity and other necessities are all magically taken care of by city utility services. I know, I know, I'm sure you diligently segregate your recycling into those blue or green boxes also provided by the city, and of course vote a straight ticket party line, but unfortunately sanctimony alone doesn't provide license to judge others. When you back up your foolish & misleading pronouncements with actual scientific reasons why the entire (US) Puget Sound, Narragansett Bay, and other large inland waters have been declared NDZs, we may be able to talk more intelligently about "environmental stewardship." I for one don't believe that making a mockery of environmental protection by arbitrary regulations is helpful towards that end.

[thinwater]

There was a proposal through the EPA to exempt Electroscan from NDZ (I believe). I recall FOE sponsored it. It went out for notice and comment but then died.



If anyone knows better or different, please post the correct information. I'm working from memory and was not involved.

[Exile]

Something doesn't quite add up with this issue. Leaving aside the apparently unique scenario on the Puget Sound, are there more significant polluters inland of the 3-mile limit that the NDZ regs are designed to restrict? Do large commercial vessels have onboard treatment systems that may be authorized to discharge inland of 3 miles that the NDZs then prohibit? It seems odd that this entire regulatory scheme is set up only for the relatively few recreational boaters with Type 1 or 2 MSDs.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Paul L

That is a pretty misleading statement. It implies that the cleanup was due to the NDZ actions. The NDZ was supportive of the cleanup, but many other major actions had to occur to get the good result. The harbor has been extensively studied and document. Here's one doc covering history and additional cleanup long after the NDZ.
http://www.cityofavalon.com/filestor...compressed.pdf

Originally Posted by senormechanico

If an NDZ applies to ALL boats AND to other sources of discharge as well, that would INCLUDE MUNICIPAL SEWAGE PLANTS !!!

I don't think that quote intended to imply that simply banning the discharge from type 1 & 2 NDZs was all that was required. I kind of thought that everyone already knew that they are just a part of larger programs which address ALL sources of contamination. I guess that's not a given...


(Restrictions DO apply to municipal plants, Senor. A former plant engineer just confirmed that, and that they are MUCH more stringent than type 1 & 2 MSDs. )

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

My point was that the improvements don't mean the old ones don't continue to meet the EPA spec. More importantly, it also doesn't mean that the old ones, even though they allow for more harmful pathogens, necessarily create more harmful pollution (esp. in saltwater). Obviously you still don't seem to understand dilution, despite my "Hint."

And my point is that one 40 year old EPA spec isn't guaranteed to be sufficient for all situations, for all time.
You do appreciate that the way shellfish feed is the reverse of dilution; they concentrate whatever's in the water, even in trace amounts, right?

Is that what I've claimed?

You've said, more than once, that NDZs were not created for demonstrated ecological reasons, and that banning discharge from a type 1 or 2 MSD would lead to more ecological harm through non-compliance. I can dredge the quotes up, if I must...

So says the urban dweller with a small daysailor and a convenient pump out facility nearby, and who's land-borne sewage, water, garbage, heat, electricity and other necessities are all magically taken care of by city utility services.

Oh, ffs. Another for you. I am interested in these issues, and I've had some involvement in the recreational marine industry. I also suspect that I sail more often, in more and different places, than many on CF. Just sayin.

I know, I know, I'm sure you diligently segregate your recycling into those blue or green boxes also provided by the city, and of course vote a straight ticket party line, but unfortunately sanctimony alone doesn't provide license to judge others. When you back up your foolish & misleading pronouncements with actual scientific reasons why the entire (US) Puget Sound, Narragansett Bay, and other large inland waters have been declared NDZs, we may be able to talk more intelligently about "environmental stewardship." I for one don't believe that making a mockery of environmental protection by arbitrary regulations is helpful towards that end.

Wow. You really, really do hate anything to do with the environment.

Look, you've clung faithfully to your macerated version of that Tom Neale rant for the whole thread. Full marks for consistency. But that rant itself wasn't terribly cohesive, and it's over 8 years old. Things change, we learn new stuff, standards get raised.

Anyway, I don't know why you're so unhappy. You have an administration whose position on the environment and its advocates seems very closely aligned with your own. Have faith that they'll find some way to stop or unwind any recent water protection measures.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

1

Here's the real problem with this example (in addition to issues others that have pointed out):

No one said there should be "no rules". The rules should be supported by sound logic and SCIENCE. Dumping a 20 gal holding tank in this situation, it's pretty easy to document the number of people who will be brought into immediate and direct contact with the sewage with the follow up health risks easily identifiable. Most logical people would support a rule that you can't dump your holding tank in the situation shown in the picture.

If you make a rule to that effect with reasonable alternatives, most people will voluntarily abide by it.

The "zero tolerance" approach applied to areas where logic and SCIENCE do not support the rule is where people take exception and the result is one of two possibilities:
- You have draconian ongoing enforcement. LEO's lose respect from the population and it makes it much harder for them to gain assistance in solving real problems.
- You have a rule that no one follows and you can pat yourself on the back for cleaning up the Cheasapeak while everyone knows, your rule didn't do a darn thing to make it better.

Neither option is productive.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Here's the real problem with this example (in addition to issues others that have pointed out):

No one said there should be "no rules". The rules should be supported by sound logic and SCIENCE. Dumping a 20 gal holding tank in this situation, it's pretty easy to document the number of people who will be brought into immediate and direct contact with the sewage with the follow up health risks easily identifiable. Most logical people would support a rule that you can't dump your holding tank in the situation shown in the picture.

Point taken. There are people in this thread who seemed to think that any discharge from a type 1 or 2 system, anywhere, is not really a problem. I concocted that Ft Walton hypothetical just as a response to that. It's not germane to the main topic of NDZs.

The "zero tolerance" approach applied to areas where logic and SCIENCE do not support the rule is where people take exception and the result is one of two possibilities:
- You have draconian ongoing enforcement. LEO's lose respect from the population and it makes it much harder for them to gain assistance in solving real problems.
- You have a rule that no one follows and you can pat yourself on the back for cleaning up the Cheasapeak while everyone knows, your rule didn't do a darn thing to make it better.

Neither option is productive.

I do get that.

I don't buy the argument that these NDZs were imposed without any scientific justification, or that they have been applied in isolation with no other measures also imposed on other sources of contamination.

I've even proposed two compromises; the most reasonable one a way to grandfather those boats with these systems already installed. But nooo... If I don't agree with a forever exemption to NDZ regs on all type 1 and 2 MSD systems, then I must be the unreasonable one.

[GordMay]

FWIW:
Small vessels without holding capacity, which are not regulated by today's rule, generate an additional 2.8 million gallons of sewage per year that can be legally discharged to California marine waters.
1. Background ➥ https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...-marine-waters

Emphasis mine.

[senormechanico]

Snipped from Gord's link:


[ EPA expects today's rule will result in large oceangoing vessels with holding tanks maximizing use of their holding tank capacity while in the NDZ. In order to comply with the NDZ, a large oceangoing vessel with a holding tank will, in most cases, choose to empty its holding tank before entering California marine waters. While present in these waters, the vessel must refrain from discharging any sewage so long as it has any holding tank capacity. If the large oceangoing vessel reaches its holding tank capacity due only to sewage generated while in the NDZ, the vessel is no longer within the class of covered vessels and can discharge properly treated sewage in compliance with the NDZ. A vessel can choose to enter the NDZ without first emptying its holding tank, but then it may not discharge any sewage. EPA recognizes that de minimis amounts of sewage may remain in the holding tank of a vessel that has fully discharged before entering State waters, and therefore has clarified in the rule that such de minimis amounts do not prohibit the vessel from discharging in State waters once its holding tank capacity is fully used. A holding tank is “fully used” when it has been filled to the point that safe and proper operation requires that it be discharged. EPA has also defined the term “holding tank” to make it clear that the rule does not intend for vessels' operators to use ballast tanks, or other tanks that have not been specifically designed, constructed, and fitted for holding sewage, to store sewage while vessels are operating in California marine waters. ]


California got this one right.


Thanks Gord !

[Lake-Effect]

For the real nerds...
https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.main...8&context=oclj


it offers a "big" reason why some states have pursued an NDZ declaration.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

FWIW:
Small vessels without holding capacity, which are not regulated by today's rule, generate an additional 2.8 million gallons of sewage per year that can be legally discharged to California marine waters.
1. Background ➥ https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...-marine-waters

Emphasis mine.

To clarify, that 2.8 million gals. from small vessels has to be treated sewage from approved Type 1's & 2's in order to comply. Your link more fully explains it:

"The supplement also summarizes data from marina surveys of small vessels which showed that 80 percent of the estimated 841,000 recreational vessels in California marine waters lack Type I or II MSDs, which means that they are already prohibited from discharging to marine waters by the CWA.

* * *

The two subject classes of vessels [basically large cruise ships] are responsible for most of the sewage generated by vessels in California marine waters, an estimated 22.5 million gallons of 28 million total gallons generated and potentially discharged each year. The information obtained by EPA did not show that extension of the rule to all vessels was required to protect and enhance the quality of the State's waters. The commenters also did not provide information which shows that it is necessary to include these other classes of vessels within the scope of the rule to protect and enhance the quality of these waters.

Extending the rule to all vessels would also be unduly burdensome on the community of marine vessel owners and operators. By applying this rule to the two classes of large vessels, the vast majority of sewage discharges will be abated in these sensitive waters. As discussed previously, much of the vessel-generated sewage that is not covered by this rule is already required to be pumped out in harbor pump-out stations, or discharged outside the 3-mile limit of State marine waters, because most recreational and small commercial vessels lack a Type I or Type II MSD to treat their sewage. The remaining vessels without holding tanks (which are required by CWA Section 312 to treat their sewage with approved MSDs), account for a comparatively small portion of the total sewage generated in the State's marine waters."

(Emphasis mine).

Seems like a sensible rule which reasonably relies on science to improve water quality where existing regs were inadequate to respond to the rapidly growing cruise ship industry. Recognizing that small vessels with Type 1's & 2's only account for a small portion of the total sewage, that including such vessels was not necessary to improve water quality, and that extending the rule to those boaters would be unduly burdensome, the EPA maintained the existing exemption for those with otherwise approved MSDs.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Point taken. There are people in this thread who seemed to think that any discharge from a type 1 or 2 system, anywhere, is not really a problem. I concocted that Ft Walton hypothetical just as a response to that. It's not germane to the main topic of NDZs.

I do get that.

I don't buy the argument that these NDZs were imposed without any scientific justification, or that they have been applied in isolation with no other measures also imposed on other sources of contamination.

I've even proposed two compromises; the most reasonable one a way to grandfather those boats with these systems already installed. But nooo... If I don't agree with a forever exemption to NDZ regs on all type 1 and 2 MSD systems, then I must be the unreasonable one.

In some cases there probably has been scientific justification but in others, it's been more a result of political pressure. If NDZ's were limited in size to inner harbors and other very congested and sensitive areas, I could more easily understand them, but nobody can realistically claim that all the waters adjacent to Rhode Island out to 3 miles offshore are so sensitive that the tiny amount of treated effluent from a transiting sailboat equipped with a LectraSan would do ANY harm at all. This prohibition, as applied to small boat cruisers, is unrealistic, unenforceable, and is definitely not scientifically based. Therefore it lacks credibility and is routinely ignored so does the environment no good at all. In order to actually protect the environment we need rules that are reasonable and enforceable and that enjoy the support of those who are affected by them so they will actually be followed.

Your so called 'compromise' is completely illogical because you would keep the older, less effective versions in use, while outlawing the more modern, more effective ones that are being produced and sold today. I can see how this could seem like a big priority and a good idea to a idealogically minded day sailor like yourself who won't be impacted, but to a cruiser who wants to come up the east coast of the US and can't always make it to an open and working pumpout station, your 'compromise' would be a huge hurdle. He and is crew are inevitably going to generate some amount of sewage every day and there's only so much you can fit into a holding tank so the excess is going to go somewhere. The real choice is, do you want it to go into a treatment device before being pumped overboard or just pumped directly overboard? The choice to install an onboard treatment device is in itself a rather expensive compromise from the traditional method of just pumping directly over the side. But you want those who are willing to pay money to compromise in order to significantly lower their footprint, to compromise yet again.