End No Discharge Zones and require Type 1 Sanitation Devices - Why not?

[peghall]

The Sani-Loo is a system sold in Australia that's very close to the American Raritan PuraSan Raritan PuraSan Promo Sheet as you'll see when you download the information from the links you and I provided.



--Peggie

[senormechanico]

[QUOTE=waterman46;2834103]That's good information, I didn't know all that detail, and thanks! [QUOTE]
So, you didn't read Peggie Hall's post where she says each poop equals the same as four oak leaves in the water. Don't get sucked into the Chicken Little "Sky is Falling" hype.

Personally I hate our LectraSan units (all 3) that each lasted about 2 years then gradually or suddenly died. The present one will just not draw the required current and I have taken the tank completely apart and cleaned it until it is spotless inside. No luck.

Are you still in the Oakland area? Estuary? That's not pure salt water, it's rain runoff. Are you putting in extra salt??? RTFM.

[thinwater]

First, the pace of NDZ addition is flat. Not sayin' whether that is good or bad, but they don't seem to be adding them fast. It also does not really correlate with any administration or politics; a locally driven thing.


Second, the USCG report has a lot of data, but there seem to be both exaggerations and understatements flung about:

EPA Summary Data (results in mg/L)
Annalyte After Treatment Result EPA Sewage Treatment Standard
BOD5 780 45
TSS 1,000 45
Fecal Coliform < 82 200 (swimming areas)


The data was quite variable, with standard deviations over 100%.

Typical raw sewage, as delivered to a sewage treatment plant is only about 200 ppm BOD, due to dilution with shower water and other low strength waste. Holding tank waste is considerably stronger due to reduced dilution.


Personally, I believe that the overall result is probably better with type II MSDs, but realistically, this is about local politics, and "zero discharge" sounds so good.


The other curiosity of the Puget Sound is that it is the only "inland water" that isn't; because it is shared with Canada, the US restriction against untreated waste that covers the Chesapeake and San Francisco Bays, for example, does not apply. Because the Sound is federal, the ONLY way WA could regulate it was NDZ. So they tried something different in an attempt to regulate cruise ships. Recreational boaters are just collateral damage.



Very likely there won;t be many more. The Puget Sound was a unique case, because of its legal status. I know this doesn't help if you are there.

[Pelagic]

It seems to me that wherever the pleasure boating community is dense, this becomes a hot topic.

In the rest of the world it is basically..
.. Don't Ask, Don't Tell!

[PamlicoTraveler]

I do think if Type 1 devices were allowed to discharge in open bodies of water that are currently listed as NDZ, the price and complexity of MSDs would come down.

The big hassle with an Electro Scan is the periodic cleaning with Muriatic Acid to keep the plates operating for as long as possible, and the pain and expense of changing the electrical plates when they do fail after a few years.

If they were a common item I am sure Raritan and others would make changing the plates easier and the plates themselves would be cheaper. Currently the new plates are over $300 and replacing them takes a day's work removing all of the screws to get inside the unit. It's not something you would choose to do for a hobby a little redesign could make it an easy process.

I agree with those who have said this is a hopeless political fight. The political will isn't there to argue the subtle distinction of an MSD Type 1 sanitation and untreated sewage from boats. So, I'll go to a pumpout in where it enters a sewage system and then is treated and released back into the environment, probably less treated than it would have been from a Type 1 in the first place.

[Boatyarddog]

Originally Posted by WindLove

I am thinking of buying a Marine Sanitation Device type 1 (probably an Electra Scan), but the decision is complicated. Here is the EPA explanation for those unfamiliar with MSD types.

It bothers me that these political people think they are being environmentally friendly when they vote to expand the No Discharge Zones. As it is now vessels are prohibited from discharging any sewage, whether treated by an MSD or not, into an area designated as a No Discharge Zone, and there are lots of big areas that are NDZ designated.

It's a misguided law. The water would be cleaner if instead we required every boat owner to have a Type 1 Marine Sanitation Device.

These devices are expensive now because the market is so limited. Most people and boat builders don't bother because there are so many NDZs. If the No Discharge Zones were eliminated and Type 1 devices were required for boats with toilets (other than compost and porta potties), the cost of Type 1's would drastically fall. Al they do is combine salt water and electricity to convert the salt water into a bactericide.

In Washington State we did not have the opportunity to vote on this extremely important issue.
Don't see how not discharging waste, treated or not, is going to create cleaner water than not discharging at all.

Our sea, The Salish Sea, is comprised of islands, a lot of cove and Bays.
We are mostly inland land masses, our waters take time to flush, not like your area, which if I'm correct connects to the open Ocean.

Cost is a deterrent to MSD1 purchases.

In smaller boats room is the premium, so porta potties are the choice.
Holding tanks and more pumpout stations, are the components for success here.
Oh yeah, AND PEOPLE THAT WANT TO CLEAN UP OUR WATERS.

That's the most important ingredient.
Cheers
SV Cloud Duster

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by PamlicoTraveler

...So, I'll go to a pumpout in where it enters a sewage system and then is treated and released back into the environment, probably less treated than it would have been from a Type 1 in the first place.

This is a false premise, which is too often repeated.


Yes, there are sewer overflows. They result from combined sewers (sanitary and storm water in the same pipe) which cannot handle large amounts of storm water and sewage a the same time. They can handle the light rain at the begining of a storm.



So ask yourself this: how many people go sailing and then pump-out within an hour of heavy rain? I think you will find that this is a very small number. If it has started raining, they delay pumping out for a better day. Actually, if it is threatening heavy rain, they stay home. There are exceptions, but you know that rain repels 95% of boaters and heavy rain (when there is risk of overflow) repels all of them from pump-out stations. I'm pretty sure I've never seen anyone pump out in the rain.


Your waste is not in the POTW that long. The average hold-up is only a few hours. More to the point, the waste probably arrives withing 30 minutes, after which i will be properly treated. It is the lift stations that overflow, not waste that is already in treatment. They bypass to protect the treatment process from upset.



So, the waste you pump out will almost certainly be treated to EPA standards before a hard rain increases the chance of an overflow. There are exceptions to this, but they are rare enough not to support the assertion that type II is cleaner. I like type II. It is surely better than no treatment, which is what many will do. But we must debate and argue with correct facts, not distortions that leave us no more credible than those who would argue the other side.

[PamlicoTraveler]

Originally Posted by thinwater

This is a false premise, which is too often repeated.


Yes, there are sewer overflows. They result from combined sewers (sanitary and storm water in the same pipe) which cannot handle large amounts of storm water and sewage a the same time. They can handle the light rain at the begining of a storm.



So ask yourself this: how many people go sailing and then pump-out within an hour of heavy rain? I think you will find that this is a very small number. If it has started raining, they delay pumping out for a better day. Actually, if it is threatening heavy rain, they stay home. There are exceptions, but you know that rain repels 95% of boaters and heavy rain (when there is risk of overflow) repels all of them from pump-out stations. I'm pretty sure I've never seen anyone pump out in the rain.


Your waste is not in the POTW that long. The average hold-up is only a few hours. More to the point, the waste probably arrives withing 30 minutes, after which i will be properly treated. It is the lift stations that overflow, not waste that is already in treatment. They bypass to protect the treatment process from upset.



So, the waste you pump out will almost certainly be treated to EPA standards before a hard rain increases the chance of an overflow. There are exceptions to this, but they are rare enough not to support the assertion that type II is cleaner. I like type II. It is surely better than no treatment, which is what many will do. But we must debate and argue with correct facts, not distortions that leave us no more credible than those who would argue the other side.

This didn't make sense to me, but maybe I am missing your point. The discussion of overflows is not what I was referring to.

I am talking about the use of a Type 1 MSD. If I use a type 1 (ie: Electro Scan) and am in a NDZ and I go to a pumpout as required by law, it will then go to a municipal treatment system that is likely to treat the waste no better than the Type 1 MSD itself.

The EPA says a Type 1 must treat to a fecal coliform bacterial count not greater than 1000 per 100 milliliters. You said you like Type 2 MSDs better, but Type II systems are more often seen on large commercial vessels, like ferries, than recreational sailboats.

My view would be that if everyone used Type 1s the water would be cleaner and safer. The pumpout system sounds better but is an inefficient way to handle marine waste.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by PamlicoTraveler

This didn't make sense to me, but maybe I am missing your point. The discussion of overflows is not what I was referring to.

I am talking about the use of a Type 1 MSD. If I use a type 1 (ie: Electro Scan) and am in a NDZ and I go to a pumpout as required by law, it will then go to a municipal treatment system that is likely to treat the waste no better than the Type 1 MSD itself.

The EPA says a Type 1 must treat to a fecal coliform bacterial count not greater than 1000 per 100 milliliters. You said you like Type 2 MSDs better, but Type II systems are more often seen on large commercial vessels, like ferries, than recreational sailboats.

My view would be that if everyone used Type 1s the water would be cleaner and safer. The pumpout system sounds better but is an inefficient way to handle marine waste.

My bad. I meant type I. But the discussion is no different. Sewage treatment plants typically operate below 100 per 100 ml.


My point is that much is said about sewer overflows, but in fact, that is a different problem, unrelated. The waste you take to a pump out will be treated to a high standard, unless you take it there during a rain storm, which statistically, is not likely.


Thus, the waste you take to a pump out WILL be treated to a higher standard than a type I MSD. Statistically, it will not be part of an overflow and it will not be "half treated."

[senormechanico]

ElectroScan meets or exceeds the EPA numbers. End of story.


What's next? Mandatory second hand fart smell encapsulation as a bio hazard?

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

ElectroScan meets or exceeds the EPA numbers. End of story.


What's next? Mandatory second hand fart smell encapsulation as a bio hazard?

My partner would vote for that! [emoji1]

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by goat

... My point is I want less forced regulations not more. Forcing all boaters to switch to electrical treatment seems a bit far...

I would argue for "different" regulations.
Current regulations resemble a "prescriptive" specification - do it this way.
I would advocate for a "performance" specification - achieve this result.
ie:
Fecal Coliform Bacterial Count: <
Biochemical Oxygen Demand: <
Total Suspended/Dissolved Solids: <

[pcmm]

Originally Posted by WindLove

I am thinking of buying a Marine Sanitation Device type 1 (probably an Electra Scan), but the decision is complicated. Here is the EPA explanation for those unfamiliar with MSD types.

It bothers me that these political people think they are being environmentally friendly when they vote to expand the No Discharge Zones. As it is now vessels are prohibited from discharging any sewage, whether treated by an MSD or not, into an area designated as a No Discharge Zone, and there are lots of big areas that are NDZ designated.

It's a misguided law. The water would be cleaner if instead we required every boat owner to have a Type 1 Marine Sanitation Device.

These devices are expensive now because the market is so limited. Most people and boat builders don't bother because there are so many NDZs. If the No Discharge Zones were eliminated and Type 1 devices were required for boats with toilets (other than compost and porta potties), the cost of Type 1's would drastically fall. Al they do is combine salt water and electricity to convert the salt water into a bactericide.

Just get a composting toilet. Best solution. no tanks or plumbing to deal with.

My sailing area has been a NDZ since the late 70's not big deal, pump out stations are everywhere and most marinas have free or very low cost pump outs for seasonal slip holders.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I would argue for "different" regulations.
Current regulations resemble a "prescriptive" specification - do it this way.
I would advocate for a "performance" specification - achieve this result.
ie:
Fecal Coliform Bacterial Count: <
Biochemical Oxygen Demand: <
Total Suspended/Dissolved Solids: <

That is the approach with type I and type II, no?


The real issue is that the state of Washington did not and does not have that authority, since they are "the waters of the United States." They did have the right to petition the EPA for an NDZ. I'm not sayin' it was a good choice, but it was the only way they could eliminate the discharge of untreated waste from cruise ships in the Puget Sound. There should have been a better way.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I would argue for "different" regulations.
Current regulations resemble a "prescriptive" specification - do it this way.
I would advocate for a "performance" specification - achieve this result.
ie:
Fecal Coliform Bacterial Count: <
Biochemical Oxygen Demand: <
Total Suspended/Dissolved Solids: <

AMEN TO THAT !

For example, look at how long it took the USA to get rid of "Sealed Beam Headlights".
The law mandated that the filament of the lamp be in a sealed container with a reflective... etc ad nauseum.
When you compare the performance of all the different options we have now, there's no comparison !

It also allowed more streamlined hood designs which saves fuel !