Puget Sound NDZ time frame?

[78puget-trawler]

According to the state web site, the EPA should soon be making a decision on whether to proceed with the NDZ for PS. Anyone have any current info other than whats on the DoE in WA? If I understand correctly doing so will make ANY discharge, treated or not into PS illegal. So was thinking about a Raritan system of some form but if we go NDZ, there is no point right? Timing is important. Either way I will have to do something with my old school existing system in this boat which has a holding tank, two new heads, Y valves, an old macerator and that's about it.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

This is on RBAW website.

Puget Sound No Discharge Zone (NDZ): We are now in wait-and-see mode with regard to the appeals filed with the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB) to both place a ‘stay’ on the NDZ petition filed by the State Department of Ecology, and for the Board to hear the Marine Alliance case against the lack of science behind the NDZ. All motions to proceed (Marine Alliance) and dismiss (Ecology) have been filed. We’re particularly disappointed with provisions of the Ecology motion to dismiss that disputes its obligation to develop a sound scientific foundation for the NDZ designation. Also of note, we have drafted an RBAW comment letter to the U.S. EPA which we would refine and send if/when a comment period commences. My thanks in particular to 1st Vice President Wayne Gilham, and Brittany, for their work on the letter.

Recreational Boating Association of Washington - Legislative Issues

 

[78puget-trawler]

Thanks for that. Sounds typical, slow drag out to more bureaucracy. I will follow that.

 

[dhays]

I would love to see a decision made quickly, but at the same time I would rather they didn't make the entire Puget Sound a NDZ. So if a delay would allow some reason to enter the discussion, it would be good.

It puts you in a bind if you need to do something soon with your own system. It would really be a bummer if you or I were to install a Purasan or Lectrosan system only to see them be made unusable shortly thereafter.

 

[78puget-trawler]

Which is why I wont until I have a better idea of whats coming. In the meantime, its winter, so will go about replacing my holding tank at least.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

SO this is so USA ignorance! They can make Puget Sound a NDZ. Only the US side! Most of us wait until we cross the Canadian boarder, then open our tanks on out going tide and send our crap back down to Washington State!!!!!

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Same old reason for this...Boaters are an easy target and TPTB can say they're addressing pollution issues. Remember that the next time a municipal plant overflows/malfunctions and pours, sometimes, millions of gallons of untreated sewage into a water way and vote accordingly (as it THAT would help...).

Unfortunately, restrictions might be put into effect with NO increase in pumpout facilities. IMO, any on board treatment devices should be severely restricted with a corresponding legally mandated increase in pumpout stations.

Just try to get your tank emptied between Chesapeake and Alligator River. Pretty slim pickin's'.

 

[BandB]

In today's world, you must be prepared to comply with No Discharge Zones as if you cruise enough, you'll encounter some. I work on the assumption that the entire world will become one and the the places I cruise, don't. One thing we've found too is that most no discharge zones make no allowance for on-boat treatment systems, regardless of the standards those systems meet. When we're cruising the coast, it's generally not an issue as we run outside most of the time. However, in doing the loop, it definitely has been. We have fueled more than 30 times and that sounds like a lot, but we've pumped out over 70 times in 7 months.

 

[78puget-trawler]

The point of my thread,, the waiting game begins.

 

[BandB]

The point of my thread,, the waiting game begins.

I wouldn't wait. It's inevitable that you'll find yourself somewhere with no discharge, so I'd assume that from the outset. I still like having the ability to treat and then discharge and we do so everywhere we can and on the vast majority of our cruising. But on the loop, that's just not been an option very often, nor has running three miles off shore since we entered the Hudson. Now that we're on the Tennessee River, we're able to discharge treated waste.

 

[dhays]

SO this is so USA ignorance! They can make Puget Sound a NDZ. Only the US side! Most of us wait until we cross the Canadian boarder, then open our tanks on out going tide and send our crap back down to Washington State!!!!!

Kind of like Victoria has been doing for years.

 

[Nomad Willy]

It's just as stupid as emmision controled smal outboards and lawn mowers.

78,
Why are you changing your holding tank?

 

[78puget-trawler]

I suspect its been in the boat since the earth cooled and its just un-useable toast.

 

[dhays]

Greetings,
Same old reason for this...Boaters are an easy target and TPTB can say they're addressing pollution issues. Remember that the next time a municipal plant overflows/malfunctions and pours, sometimes, millions of gallons of untreated sewage into a water way and vote accordingly (as it THAT would help...).

Unfortunately, restrictions might be put into effect with NO increase in pumpout facilities. IMO, any on board treatment devices should be severely restricted with a corresponding legally mandated increase in pumpout stations.

The WA State Dept of Ecology in their petition to the EPA for the change to a NDZ for all of Puget Sound made a strong case for the fragility of the Puget Sound ecosystem. Water quality threatens not only wildlife habitat but commercial aquaculture operations.

The problem is that they then jump to the conclusion that the discharge of treated waste should end to help fix the above problem. In the material that I read, they didn't make the case for banning the discharge of treated waste from recreational boats. (this is from memory so won't be exact) Their own data shows that 80% of the Nitrogen in the Puget Sound comes from the ocean through Juan de Fuca Strait. Of the remaining 20%, 65% of that comes from river inflow into the Sound. Then the majority of the rest comes from municiple wastewater. They don't even bother to quantify how much comes from recreational boaters.

In looking at bacterial contamination, their study shows that most of the bacterial contamination comes from municiple sewage treatment plants and private septic tanks. Even so, I don't see the state being in a hurry to tighten up the regulations on the cities and force the counties to institute mandated sewage systems. Again, they don't even bother to calculate the bacterial load caused by treated waste from recreational boaters.

The final issue is nutrients. Again, most of them come from the rivers (natural sources and run off) but a lot comes from other sources as well. While they make a big point about the danger to aquaculture, I never saw them reference the nutrient pollution caused by aquaculture.

This was all from a very quick reading of a section of the petition. Maybe there are some more rational arguments that I missed.

 

[78puget-trawler]

The 90 day review period is technically up so perhaps we will hear something soon. Or not.

 

[twistedtree]

It's too bad there is no way to apply NDZ only to boats over a certain tonnage. I can see not wanting the big cruise ships to pump out in the sound, but I find it hard to believe rec boats are such a big issue.

 

[captwill]

I hate to say it, but I can almost guarantee that the EPA will grant the state of Washington their request for a NDZ.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

The WA State Dept of Ecology in their petition to the EPA for the change to a NDZ for all of Puget Sound made a strong case for the fragility of the Puget Sound ecosystem. Water quality threatens not only wildlife habitat but commercial aquaculture operations.

So I highlighted the above. The Feds and State of Washington only have jurisdiction in US Waters. So anything north of the San Juans, well it won't be a NDZ......

 

[dhays]

So I highlighted the above. The Feds and State of Washington only have jurisdiction in US Waters. So anything north of the San Juans, well it won't be a NDZ......

Very true, but many folks like me are still tied to dirtside jobs so spend the vast majority of our time within the confines of US waters.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

Very true, but many folks like me are still tied to dirtside jobs so spend the vast majority of our time within the confines of US waters.

Yes but the boarder is only 5 minutes from Roche....

 

[koliver]

Yes but the boarder is only 5 minutes from Roche....

I really, really hope you are not suggesting that US boaters make a practice of discharging in Canadian waters when not permitted to discharge in US waters, though they be only 5 miles from home. That suggestion STINKS. I am personally offended by it. It is disrespectful of the friendly border that has existed here since the end of the Pig war.

Should this occur, the open welcome customarily extended by Canada to all US boaters, with or without holding tanks, would be in jeopardy.

 

[psneeld]

Is it legal in Canadian waters?

I don't think anyone is talking raw sewage, just treated.

Unless there is a dike built...the concept of an imaginary line starting or stopping treated effluent is interesting.

 

[Bob Cofer]

If the treated discharge is so clean and fresh then why not just pump it into your FW tank? I hate government regulation but dumping **** in the sound is a bad idea be it municipal or pleasure boat.

 

[psneeld]

If the treated discharge is so clean and fresh then why not just pump it into your FW tank? I hate government regulation but dumping **** in the sound is a bad idea be it municipal or pleasure boat.

Why not recycle municipal wastewater into city water? Same concept.

People that post stuff like that just make me wonder how much time they have actually spent on the water, in the wilderness and actually out in the real environment.

No, there are limits for everything...but that post was about as rediculous an argument as it gets and just shows there is no reason when dealing with controversial subjects with some people

Makes some boaters feel, why bother.....so they will just do whatever.

Dumping shi*? I think the discussion is really about treated waste...but I know that is a concept some people cant get their head around.

Everyone complains of government with no compromise on so much...then this....

 

[78puget-trawler]

Again Victoria comes to mind....

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. ps. "Makes some boaters feel, why bother.....so they will just do whatever." I agree that may the true in some cases.

A couple of years back we had rented a canal slip in Ft. Lauderdale. Long story short, my "neighbor" would pump his "treated" sewage after dark. I wasn't sure of the reg's at the time AND this guys attitude actually put me in fear for my well being so I did not report him. But he just didn't give a sh'...(well actually he did-literally). He reckoned he was allowed to since it was "treated" and evidently cleaner than the canal we docked in...

 

[BandB]

Why not recycle municipal wastewater into city water? Same concept.

Which we do. Most areas built around rivers get their water from the same rivers their sewage ends up. But then, with watermakers, we're getting water from the same body of water we dump treated sewage into.

The main reason I believe most no discharge zones don't allow treated sewage is that law enforcement can't tell if one is dumping treated or untreated and the other boaters see you dumping treated and think then it's fine for them to dump, although they don't have treatment systems.

We're on the TN River at the moment and it's no discharge of raw sewage but you can dump all the treated you want to.

 

[dhays]

Is it legal in Canadian waters?

I don't think anyone is talking raw sewage, just treated.

Unless there is a dike built...the concept of an imaginary line starting or stopping treated effluent is interesting.

It would be good to have a Canadian (or Peggie) interpret the rules. But as I understand it, you can dump raw sewage into BC waters if you are more than 3 miles from any shoreline and do it in a deep body of water on an ebb tide and do it while traveling as fast as you can (at least 4 knots).

Looking at the rest of the Canadian rules confuses me. I'm not sure where the Raritan systems would fall in the Canadian scheme. They are a USCG Type 1 MSD treatment device, but actually treat to a much higher standard that the Type 1 calls for. Not sure if they would meet either of the two Canadian standards that are listed.

Finally, maybe our Canadian friends can tell us what the status is of holding tank pump-out facilies. I was surprised how hard they were to find this last summer up in BC.

 

[Bob Cofer]

Psneeld,

Your myopic armchair view from thousands of miles away of this issue in these specific waters is more worrisome than my glib comment.

I live work and boat on these waters every day. There are pump outs at nearly every marina and port of call. There is absolutely no reason to discharge treated or untreated waste overboard in these waters. Perhaps more insight into this area would help you to understand the issue.

My apologies to the OP for the thread drift. This conversation should continue in a separate thread.

 

[78puget-trawler]

Victoria’s fight over treating its sewage — or keep pushing it raw into ocean as it has for decades | National Post


No worries on the thread drift. But again it does bring this to mind when we talk about the dumping of raw or treated sewage by boats into this large body of water with lots of tide currents. Since there is no dike as psneeld mentioned between our boundaries, just a line on the map (chart), one imagines that this would have a very much larger impact than what boaters do.