View Single Post
Old 08-08-2015, 08:26 PM   #81
ranger58sb
Guru
 
ranger58sb's Avatar
 
City: Annapolis
Vessel Name: Ranger
Vessel Model: 58' Sedan Bridge
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 7,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickB View Post
The CFRs are published and accessible to the public ... it just takes time to search and read them. Not to say that is easy or particularly rewarding.

Yep, agree, not easy and so far, no luck.


The regs say that a type III MSD is a system that receives waste (sewage) and holds it for disposal at a shore pumpout or may be legally pumped overboard outside the 3 mile line. The regs do not address the past, present, or future contents or the quality of those contents, they only state that it is illegal to discharge or dump a holding tank except outside 3 miles or at a shore pumpout. The regs state that it is illegal to open the overboard valves except beyond 3 miles. That is the bottom line and really all that matters.

That's the language I don't easily find. I find it's illegal to dump waste, not that it's illegal to dump contents of a holding tank.

???


Like I said before, the regs do not say that a LEO, EPA inspector, or CG boarding officer must determine what you are pumping or dumping to complete the offense or that the discharge must be a certain color or odor or be potable or poisonous.

Enforcement would likely (obviously?) default to dump/no dump, without regard to contents. I get that, don't care, no argument, I'm only intrigued by the language used.

Trying to read too much into the regs is a pointless exercise as is trying to find a rhetorical loophole for doing what may indeed be harmless but still illegal.

Not trying to read into anything, nor am I trying to justify an action I don't intend to take. Not interested in a debate about whether that action might be harmless or not. Just interested in the process of creating technical documentation (and law, in this case) using clear and unambiguous language.

Comes from a lifetime of creating technical documentation... where we know sometimes the author doesn't say what he/she means... usually caught in the editing process. Especially during the second editing process, when folks are called in who don't already know the material the doc is purporting to describe; they usually identify oddities not apparent to original authors who think they know what they meant, whether they said that or not.

Didn't mean to hijack the original thread intent, just find it comical if a perfectly good bottle of Laphroig or whatever can all of a sudden legally become "waste" simply by nature of spilling it into a new (never before used) "holding tank." Of course that would indeed be "a waste" -- no matter what.



-Chris
__________________
Chesapeake Bay, USA
ranger58sb is offline   Reply With Quote