Coming to Puget Sound? Illegal to dump waste cleaner than shoreside teated?

[Chuck Gould]

It's already illegal to dump untreated waste in Puget Sound, and absolutely should be. The latest brainstorm from Washington State environmentalists is to make it illegal to dump waste that not only meets USCG standards, but has actually been (according to test results published by the EPA) sanitized well beyond the standards met by most shore side treatment plants! This lunacy will make the sound *dirtier*, not cleaner!

Email received from the State of Washington follows:

The Washington State Department of Ecology is dedicated to improving water quality in Puget Sound. Ecology is working on multiple fronts to address a wide variety of pollutant sources. As one part of this effort, the Department of Ecology is evaluating a “No Discharge Zone” for all (or portions) of the Sound. You are receiving this e-mail because we believe that you are likely to be interested in this effort and can provide us with important input.

A “No Discharge Zone” (NDZ) is a designated body of water where the discharge of sewage from boats is prohibited. This prohibition would apply to all boat sewage discharges, even those from vessels that provide treatment. Current regulations and commonly used vessel treatment technologies are not accomplishing enough to protect sensitive Puget Sound marine and aquatic resources. Elevated nutrient and algae concentrations and areas of low dissolved oxygen in many parts of Puget Sound have resulted in water quality standard violations. Unsafe fecal bacteria concentrations have been detected at many Puget Sound beaches and recreational shellfish harvesting areas, posing a risk to public health.

No decisions have been made to proceed with a petition for NDZ.However, Ecology has begun gathering information to evaluate whether to proceed with developing a petition. The following information is being considered:
· Pumpout facilities and capabilities currently available
· Data on boat usage patterns and user demographics
· Environmental conditions
· Costs and benefits of establishing a NDZ
· Marine sanitation device technology
· Lessons learn from NDZ processes in other states.

We are currently working with various stakeholders to better evaluate needs and concerns. We have a website that provides reports and information about this evaluation: Clean Green Boating | No Discharge Zone | Washington State Department of Ecology.
We are particularly interested in your concerns, ideas and suggestions. We would appreciate hearing any feedback by March 22, 2013 to:

Amy Jankowiak
WA State Dept of Ecology
3190 - 160th Ave. SE
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
amy.jankowiak@ecy.wa.gov

Please forward this on to any others that might be interested. If you do not wish to receive further e-mails regarding the NDZ evaluation, please let me know.

Sincerely,
Amy Jankowiak

Amy Jankowiak
Department of Ecology, Northwest Regional Office
Water Quality Program
3190 160th Avenue SE, Bellevue WA 98008
(425) 649-7195 ajan461@ecy.wa.gov

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

Sounds like the Kookafornians that moved up to the Seattle area are trying to impose the same silly regulations they have down there.....

 

[Pineapple Girl]

wait a minute, I live in Kookafornia (LOL) and there aren't that many NDZs here! I can only think of one around me and it is a very small area in a large body of water. It is a bay that is full of liveaboards (who still dump overboard) so I can understand why they made that small area a NDZ. To make all of Puget Sound a NDZ is madness! I hope this does not go anywhere.

I took a look at NDZs in CA and see that a lot of the bays in So Cal are 100% NDZ. Very interesting as I have always thought No Cal (where I live) was the more tree hugger environmentalist part of the state yet we only have the one small NDZ (thankfully, as I plan to put in a treatment device so I can discharge treated waste). Thanks for prompting me to take a look Mr Sea Duction.

 

[Chuck Gould]

To Jennifer: Under the EPA no-discharge regulations, you may *not* discharge treated waste. That's the problem. There is no distinction between adequately and properly treated waste and good old fashioned raw sewage.

 

[Nomad Willy]

The solution to pollution is dilution.

As long as the amount of pollution is small or/and the medium the pollution is diluted in is huge the above applies.

But there's Huge numbers of people living and polluting in Puget Sound.

I think the stats indicate that whales and cruise ships pollute the waters of SE Alaska much more than people.

So everything is relative.

Some boaters would hang it over the side in NY harbor and I spoze a Sierra Club type wouldn't pee in the ocean out of sight of land but if the waters of Puget Sound are polluted we all need to share the responsibility.

Chuck have you considered that shore side discharges may be WAY too "dirty" and that that is being addressed as well so the end result is acceptable discharges from all sources? There may be or probably is a wide variety of discharges into the Sound and the environmental types and/or agencies are doing their best to have human activity not destroy the Sound as we know it.

I don't know enough to make calls on this Chuck but the actions by the State of Washington Dept of Ecology may be entirely responsible and reasonable.

 

[Pineapple Girl]

To Jennifer: Under the EPA no-discharge regulations, you may *not* discharge treated waste. That's the problem. There is no distinction between adequately and properly treated waste and good old fashioned raw sewage.

YES! I understand, thanks Chuck. That is why I am glad that where I am there is only the one small NDZ (and not someplace I ever go). So I WILL be able to discharge. I complete agree with you that NDZs are NOT solving a problem as the discharge from the treatment devices meets OR EXCEEDS EPA standards. I don't understand what science NDZs are based on but glad I do NOT boat in a NDZ!!

I SURE hope this does not happen to you in Puget Sound!!! I take it you have a treatment device?

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

wait a minute, I live in Kookafornia (LOL) and there aren't that many NDZs here! I can only think of one around me and it is a very small area in a large body of water. It is a bay that is full of liveaboards (who still dump overboard) so I can understand why they made that small area a NDZ. To make all of Puget Sound a NDZ is madness! I hope this does not go anywhere.

I took a look at NDZs in CA and see that a lot of the bays in So Cal are 100% NDZ. Very interesting as I have always thought No Cal (where I live) was the more tree hugger environmentalist part of the state yet we only have the one small NDZ (thankfully, as I plan to put in a treatment device so I can discharge treated waste). Thanks for prompting me to take a look Mr Sea Duction.

I was born in souther Cal so I can say Kookafornia. It was my understanding that all boats in Kookafornia are required to have a grey tank (dish water). Nothing overboard. So this is only for Sothern Cal?

It will be interesting to see how this situation plays out. Pumping black tank waste (Poop) overboard within the 3nm is illegal with federal regulations anyway.......Hence the reason OR and WA have "free" pumpout stations everywhere up here in the PNW.

 

[caltexflanc]

"It was my understanding that all boats in Kookafornia are required to have a grey tank (dish water). Nothing overboard. So this is only for Sothern Cal?"

Not true anywhere on the coast north or south. Tahoe maybe.

NDZs are far more prevalent on the east coast, harbors on Long Island Sound and New England and the Keys for example, and they don't dump treated sewage from land in those zones either. I think most NDZs are silly given the quality of the treatment the better marine devices produce, but on the other hand, the overall end result in places like Boot Key Harbor are hard to argue with.

 

[Codger2]

Sounds like the Kookafornians that moved up to the Seattle area are trying to impose the same silly regulations they have down there.....

First, let me assure you that I am not a tree hugger or a conservation radical. I believe we have lost a lot of our freedoms because of silly EPA regs.

Now, let me tell you what I've seen with my own eyes in the last 17 years that I've lived in San Diego.

My first boat in San Diego was purchased in 1995 and at that time the Bay was pretty damn dirty. Over the years, new regulations & laws crept in, people complained (lost freedoms, etc) but even the divers were concerned about having to work in the "dirty water." Now there's a big debate raging, relative to the copper content in the water at the Shelter Island marinas and of course they are blaming it on "bottom paint. Sounds like the Libs have made a lot of inroads into our once pristine environment and we have lost a lot of our freedoms on the water. Right?

Wrong! It's true that we have many more regulations than we had 20 years ago but I have seen more wild dolphins in the Bay than ever before and they are mammals that love clean water! Recent testing of the waters in San Diego Bay also show a markedly improved aquatic environment. The U.S Navy has jumped on board, supporting this new awakening and has cleaned up their act.

The city of San Diego and the folks that recreate in our waters are, indeed, better off because of these regulations and laws.

 

[Chuck Gould]

Hello, Walt

I'm with you, somewhat. I think that whatever we dispose of into the water should be cleaned up as much as possible. I am adamantly opposed to dumping untreated sewage into any body of water.

The thousands of gallons of year waste from my residence? The cleanest thing I can do with that is send to to the shoreside treatment plant. The hundreds of gallons of year waste from my boat? The cleanest thing I can do with that is treat it in a small batch on board my vessel. It will then enter the water cleaner than if I go to a dock and pump it into a shoreside treatment system instead.

Read the EPA report on Type 1 devices. Most of the time the amount of fecal coliform in the effluent was "non-detectable". The test that was supervised by the EPA hooked a device into the intake pipe of a city sewer system in order to get the raw effluent. The test ran the device at a much greater frequency than would anybody would aboard a boat, where there is not a constant flow of waste. (well, maybe during some tall tales told after dinner over cocktails, but that's not the sort of BS we're dealing with here)

During one period of the test, the testing crew allowed the brine tank to run out of salt, and the fecal coliform readings shot way, way, up. That proves that if you don't use the system properly, it won't work as designed. No brainer. It's important to note that the EPA test *disabled* the fail-safe software system which would have shut the system down and prevented any use at all if the system had been installed in a traditional manner aboard a boat.

 

[Pineapple Girl]

Walt I believe what you have seen. I question whether that is because people have stopped pumping raw waste or because they aren't pumping treated waste?? Grey water still goes overboard, yes? It seems to me that onboard waste treatment systems are a GOOD thing! I am glad the environment is doing better!

I was fairly disgusted to realize the PO of our boat had been dumping overboard, as evidenced by his thoroughly salted up waste discharge line from the head to the Y valve and the Y valve to the overboard through hull and his pristinely clean line from the Y valve to the clean 9 gallon (!!!) holding tank. He lived aboard in the one NDZ we have in this area!!!

 

[ancora]

The wacko-enviros here in San Diego, are pushing for non-copper bottom paints even though they admit that most of the copper in the water comes from autombile brake pads. P.S. Currently there is no non-copper bottom paint on the market that come even close to the efficacy of copper bottom paint.

 

[Nomad Willy]

PG,
Lots of really self centered people out there.

 

[Marin]

I have no problem with all of Puget Sound becoming an NDZ. Parts of the Sound have very low rates of water exchange, particularly Hood Canal, and as a result the slowly increasing pollution levels have reduced the oxygen levels in the water to the point where fish and shellfish populations are dropping.

Making all of Puget Sound and the San Juans an NDZ will have zero impact on our own boating. Our marina has an excellent system of fixed and portable pump out stations that make it easy and fast to pump out a boat after a cruise. We do not have treatment systems on our boat, only a pair of holding tanks.

While making Puget Sound an NDZ might be annoying to boaters who have spent the money on a treatment toilet system for their boats, I view it as a total non-issue with regards on its impact on boating in general. These waters are a no-raw-sewage dump zone now. For most boaters, making it an NDZ isn't going to change anything and reducing the amount of pollutants in the water, treated to meet some government "standard" or not, is a good thing in my view.

While an NDZ would make no difference whatsoever to our own boating, I'd vote for it if it ever came to a public vote.

I agree with PG that dumping treated waste into the water is a good thing. But I think not dumping any waste into the water is a better thing.

 

[OFB]

These pictures show the result of street run off. I get a little sick of seeing it so I came up with my M & M ( marine mop ).

From what I have seen the sum what cleaner waters here are a direct result of industry leaving this area. With most of the old technologies ( mills / factories ) simply moving to more industry freindly areas.

Pleasure boaters are percieved as a cash cow with any change directed at us resulting in minimal direct change to the over all enviroment here. IMO

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

I have no problem with all of Puget Sound becoming an NDZ. Parts of the Sound have very low rates of water exchange, particularly Hood Canal, and as a result the slowly increasing pollution levels have reduced the oxygen levels in the water to the point where fish and shellfish populations are dropping.

Making all of Puget Sound and the San Juans an NDZ will have zero impact on our own boating. Our marina has an excellent system of fixed and portable pump out stations that make it easy and fast to pump out a boat after a cruise. We do not have treatment systems on our boat, only a pair of holding tanks.



While making Puget Sound an NDZ might be annoying to boaters who have spent the money on a treatment toilet system for their boats, I view it as a total non-issue with regards on its impact on boating in general. These waters are a no-raw-sewage dump zone now. For most boaters, making it an NDZ isn't going to change anything and reducing the amount of pollutants in the water, treated to meet some government "standard" or not, is a good thing in my view.

While an NDZ would make no difference whatsoever to our own boating, I'd vote for it if it ever came to a public vote.

I agree with PG that dumping treated waste into the water is a good thing. But I think not dumping any waste into the water is a better thing.

So that would mean NOTHING overboard such as sink water (grey water)? Is this going to require each boater to "log" each and every pumpout or be fined?

Now if the documented "science" proves what you are saying and the emotion factor is removed, then yes I would support it. Oregon and Washington has pumpout programs which allows for free pumpout of boat holding tanks. I disagree with your contentions that this will not effect boaters. They will be forced to modify their boats at great cost in an economy that is already seeing fuel costing over $5 a gallon. It will not be long until the only boaters on the water are the rich and unfamous.

George,

It is my understanding (I could be wrong) that all boats in coastal Kookafornia must be equiped with a "grey" tank with no discharge of soap water etc overboard. Not true?

 

[THD]

As with most newly proposed regulations, the low hanging fruit gets picked off first. We are the lowhanging fruit. I am with Marin, no discharge is better than any discharge. But, if it is to be put in place, my caveat is-it must apply equally to all. If the harm is substantial enough to require such regulation, then no entity, cruise lines, commercial, or governmental, should be granted any exception to the regulation. All of the largest dischargers will argue that the economic cost to them is too high so they should receive differential treatment-exemptions, long-tem phase-in or the like. To which the regulators should, but won't, reply-"Tough, deal with it!"

 

[Marin]

I don't believe the NDZ regulations in effect or being considered include gray water. Even if they were, this would not impact our own boating at all. We use very little fresh water on a cruise. Washing dishes and showers are all and we use very little water in each case. And it would be comparatively simple to plumb the sinks and shower to go to the holding tanks.

But I'm not advocating this other than thinking it would be a good idea for new-built boats to incorporate it in their designs.

Toilet sewage, treated or not, is the issue at hand here. And I see no penalty whatsoever to boaters to making all of Puget Sound an NDZ. Other than the relative (I suspect) few who have a treatment system on board and who won't be able to use it anymore.

Everyone else is supposed to pump to shore facilities now, so nothing changes.

 

[Nomad Willy]

AkSD wrote;

"I disagree with your contentions that this will not effect boaters. They will be forced to modify their boats at great cost in an economy that is already seeing fuel costing over $5 a gallon."

OK ... well who and in what way do you propose that polluters be reined in to the extent that our waters be only acceptably polluted? Ideally it's the people that "use" what's in question that should pay the price whether it be tools on a new bridge, construction of new ferries or too many people slopp'in their waste into such places as Puget Sound. It could come to the point that pleasure boaters won't be allowed on the Sound and then who will be paying the price of the present day outlaws?

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

I don't believe the NDZ regulations in effect or being considered include gray water. Even if they were, this would not impact our own boating at all. We use very little fresh water on a cruise. Washing dishes and showers are all and we use very little water in each case. And it would be comparatively simple to plumb the sinks and shower to go to the holding tanks.

But I'm not advocating this other than thinking it would be a good idea for new-built boats to incorporate it in their designs.

Toilet sewage, treated or not, is the issue at hand here. And I see no penalty whatsoever to boaters to making all of Puget Sound an NDZ. Other than the relative (I suspect) few who have a treatment system on board and who won't be able to use it anymore.

Everyone else is supposed to pump to shore facilities now, so nothing changes.

OK so my point is this: Is it not currently illegal to pump raw sewage from your boat within 3nm zone now? If so why do we need more regulation? Why not enforce the current law? I would think anyone anyone not pumping out and dumping within Puget Sound would be in violation of the current law. Just say'in

 

[Pineapple Girl]

Mr sea duction, no grey water restrictions here in California. ?

 

[Codger2]

It is my understanding (I could be wrong) that all boats in coastal Kookafornia must be equiped with a "grey" tank with no discharge of soap water etc overboard. Not true?

If that''s true, it's one of the best kept secrets I have ever seen!

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

or too many people slopp'in their waste into such places as Puget Sound.

See my post above. Enforce the current law. If a boater dumps raw sewage and is stupid enough not to use the "free" pumpout, then make them pay a big fine and jail time like a DUI? Then they would not be allowed into Canada. Why do we need additional regulation if we are not enforcing the laws on the books now?

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

If that''s true, it's one of the best kept secrets I have ever seen!

Well then I was worried about having to add a grey tank for nothing! Thanks....

 

[Codger2]

Our marina has an excellent system of fixed and portable pump out stations that make it easy and fast to pump out a boat after a cruise.

I agree with PG that dumping treated waste into the water is a good thing. But I think not dumping any waste into the water is a better thing.

 

[caltexflanc]

George,

It is my understanding (I could be wrong) that all boats in coastal Kookafornia must be equiped with a "grey" tank with no discharge of soap water etc overboard. Not true?

Not true. You are indeed wrong.

 

[Marin]

If so why do we need more regulation? Why not enforce the current law?

What difference does more regulation make if it doesn't change what people are supposed to be doing anyway?

You're right, not enforcing regulations doesn't give much credibility to the value of the regulation. But if you don't even have the regulation, enforcement, no matter how little, can't be done at all.

Making Puget Sound an NDZ means that on paper, at least, the pollutants entering the Sound will be reduced. This is particularly important in critical areas like Hood Canal.

Now whether these regulations are enforced or not is another matter. Enforcement priority is determined by the courts or the enforcement agencies or governments. But if, for example, the marine life die-off in Hood Canal becomes serious enough to warrant taking heavy action, having the NDZ requirement in place means the enforcement agencies have an enforceable regulation in place to enforce.

If the NDZ designation is not already in place, it means that a ton of time will be required to create and pass it while the marine life continues to die off.

Anyone who believes the creation of a regulation is going to have an immediate effect on fixing a problem is pretty naive, I think. But if you don't at least start with the regulation, you can never have enforcement which means the problem can't be addressed at all, now or in the future.

 

[Codger2]

I don't know enough to make calls on this Chuck but the actions by the State of Washington Dept of Ecology may be entirely responsible and reasonable.

For quite a long time, I believed that these EPA efforts were an additional PITA to boaters. But when I'm taking an evening cruise with my beautiful wife (She's only 30 ) and 3 or 4 wild dolphins (not the Navy's trained dolphins) swim by, that's about as cool as it gets for me.

I don't know "what or who" the big polluters are, all I know is San Diego Bay is cleaner now that when I first moved here in 1996.

( P.S. Just kidding about my wife! Not her beauty, her age! )

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

For quite a long time, I believed that these EPA efforts were an additional PITA to boaters. But when I'm taking an evening cruise with my beautiful wife (She's only 30 ) and 3 or 4 wild dolphins (not the Navy's trained dolphins) swim by, that's about as cool as it gets for me.

I don't know "what or who" the big polluters are, all I know is San Diego Bay is cleaner now that when I first moved here in 1996.

( P.S. Just kidding about my wife! Not her beauty, her age! )

What are you talking about Walt, She looks 30 to me!!!

 

[Pineapple Girl]

Ok PNW boaters, I am confused. Isn't it already illegal for boaters to discharge untreated waste in Puget Sound? per the 3 mile limit rule? So making it a NDZ steps it up to where even treated waste cannot be discharged? As Marin pointed out, there are not that many recreational boaters with waste treatment devices. So why punish that small segment that have chosen to spend a few boat bucks to be able to LEGALLY discharge their waste by making it a NDZ? Why not ENFORCE the current law that untreated waste cannot be discharged? Or am I incorrect and now it is legal to dump untreated waste in Puget Sound?