[REPORT ON THE EXISTING PROGRAM
FOR REGULATION OF MARINE SANITATION DEVICES
UNDER SECTION 312 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
OCTOBER, 1981 PREPARED BY:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to discuss options for revisions
to the existing marine sanitation device (MSD) program (section
312 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1322).
The Senate Appropriations Committee Report accompanying
the FY 1981 Housing and Urban Development (KUD) and Independent
Agencies Appropriation Bill contained a request that the Admini-
strator provide the Congress with a justification of the basis
for the marine sanitation device program. EPA prepared a pre-
liminary analysis for the Committee, which was discussed at a
meeting between senior Agency staff and Mr. Wallace G. Berger,
Chief Clerk of the HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee on
January 9, 1981. At that meeting, it was agreed that the paper
should be revised to include options for changing the existing
program and an analysis of these options. This paper is the
Agency's response to the Committee's request. The Coast Guard,
the agency responsible for certification of equipment and enforce-
ment of the MSD program, has participated in the preparation of
this paper.
The Agency has analyzed six alternatives ranging from
abolition of all Federal requirements for MSD's on vessels to
imposing Federal no-discharge requirements on all such vessels
in all states. We believe that these alternatives provide Con-
gress with a suitable range of regulatory options in lieu of the
current regulatory scheme. We look forward to working with
Congress on the development of a particular option. To place
the options in context, some background material has been prepared
-------
-2-
The statutory and regulatory history of the present program is
described (Appendix A) and a summary of a technical analysis of
the effectiveness of the existing recreational boat program
(Appendix B), which was prepared for EPA by a contractor, has
also been included.^/ The contractor was asked to collect and
analyze data regarding the effects of sewage discharges from
recreational vessels on the aquatic environment. Also examined
were the attitudes of a segment of the regulated community (recre-
ational vessel and MSB manufacturers and recreational boaters)
and the states towards the existing recreational boat program.
Some of the key findings are:
o The regulated community consists only of owners of vessels
with installed toilets, fewer than 10% of the U.S. vessels.
o The concentration of vessels varies from state to state.
o Measurable environmental effects from marine discharges
are seasonal and localized in nature.
The complete contractor's report is attached.
II. ELEMENTS FOR ANY OPTION
After assessment of the current MSB program and evaluation
of possible alternatives, we have developed a number of factors
which appear to be central to the program. We believe these
factors should be used to evaluate the options, as they allow
I/ JRB Associates, Inc. of McLean, Virginia performed work pursuant
to EPA Contract No. 68-01-6347; Work Assignment 1.
-------
-3-
for consideration of a balance between the competing interests
of involved parties while providing for environmental protection
1. Certainty for the affected parties
- the boating community should be assured that the
equipment they purchase meets required standards.
- MSP manufacturers need certainty that their device
can meet the requirements of a given state's MSD
regulations and that they will be able to market
their device nationally without fifty competing
sets of standards.
- vessel brokers need a clear understanding of any
use and re-sale restrictions that an MSD-equipped
vessel may be subject to.
2. States' interests
- States should be able to set their own level of
environmental protection based upon, their own
assessment of the problem from marine discharge.
3. Interstate travel and commerce
- Citizens should be permitted to freely travel from
state to state.
4. Enforcement
- There must be effective enforcement at the point of
manufacture and at the point of use on the water.
-------
-4-
It appears that sewage discharges from vessels do not pre-
sent a national environmental problem. Environmental impacts
from such discharges appear to have only local effects and should
therefore, from an environmental perpective, be dealt with on a
local or state level. However, as a result of other considera-
tions, such as effects on interstate commerce and travel that
would result from state and local control of vessel discharges,
a continuing federal presence may be warranted.
III. BACKGROUND
There are approximately 8.2 million pleasure craft presently
registered in the United States, according to statistics compiled
by the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) and
approximately 75,000 documented commercial vessels._2/ These
vessels discharge sewage in varying quantities and with varying
levels of treatment into water which is used for commercial
fishing, recreation, and public water supplies, and is necessary
for protection of fish and wildlife.
Human sewage can contain a wide variety of bacteria, viruses,
fungi, and worms which can contribute to increased incidence of
disease. If inadequately treated sewage is discharged in the
vicinity of shellfish beds, the shellfish can be contaminated.
In addition, inadequately treated sewage contains material that
depletes the amount of oxygen available for aquatic organisms
2/ There are also an additional three million small recreational
vessels (i.e. canoes, rowboats, etc. ) which are not registered
and are not considered in this study.
-------
and can contribute to the death of these organisms and the
creation of eutrophic bodies of water which are undesirable for
recreation or drinking.
At the present time, vessels with installed toilets.3/ must
be equipped with MSB's. MSD's are designed to either hold sewage
for shore-based disposal or to treat sewage prior to discharge.
Three types of MSD's are available. In Type I MSB's, disinfectant
chemicals are usually mixed with the raw sewage, which is chopped
up with high speed blades and then discharged. Type I MSB's
discharge treated effluent having a fecal coliform bacterial
count 4/ not greater than 1000 per 100 milliliters and no visible
floating solids. 5/
In Type II MSB's, the waste is chopped up and either chemically
or biologically treated. In the biological treatment process,
naturally occurring microbiological organisms break down the
sewage; chemicals are used as disinfectants for fecal coliform
T7Of the approximately 8.2 million registered recreational
vessels in this country, a small number, approximately 750,000
have installed toilets. Of the 75,000 U.S. commercial vessels, the
majority are equipped with installed toilets. Of the 7.5 million
recreational vessels without installed toilets, some may be equipped
with portable toilets. These toilets are either emptied into an
appropriate container or dumped overboard, discharging raw sewage
into the waters. Raw sewage can also be discharged from vessels
that do not have portable toilets. The existing statutory program
only covers vessels with installed toilets. Vessels without
installed toilets that may discharge raw sewage are not addressed
by this program.
4/ Fecal coliform bacteria are indicia of fecal discharges from
warm-blooded animals which may contain disease-causing organisms.
5/ 40 C.F.R. §140.3(a)(2).
-------
-6-
reduction. A means of removing suspended solid material from
the waste, such as sedimentation or filtration, is usually necessary,
Type II MSB's discharge treated effluent having a fecal coliform
bacterial count of less than 200 per 100 railliliters and suspended
solids less than 150 milligrams per liter (mg/l).j/ Because of
their generally larger size, weight, power consumption, maintenance
requirements and initial capital expense as compared to Type I
or III systems, Type II systems are not usually considered a
viable alternative for vessels under 65 feet in length.
Type III MSB's do not discharge any sewage, either treated
or raw. They are devices designed to store the sewage (usually
with disinfectants and deodorants added) until it can be pumped
out at a shore-based facility or in an unrestricted discharge
zone. Incineration and recirculation devices may also qualify
as Type III MSB's, but are generally not used on recreational
vessels.
IV. THE PROBLEM
Recreational boaters have been very much opposed to the
existing program. Recreational boaters argue that sewage from
vessels does not pose a significant environmental problem; that
any environmental impacts from vessel sewage are localized; and
that the problem does not merit Federal regulation. Recreational
boaters have also expressed opposition to the specific Federal
requirements for MSB's claiming that they are unduly burdensome
6/ 40 C.P.R §140.3(d).
-------
-7-
because MSD's take up space, are very expensive, inconvenient to
use and operate, and even pose potential safety problems. Conse-
quently, voluntary compliance with the regulations by recreational
vessels has been minimal. Furthermore, the Coast Guard has not
been able to adequately enforce the Federal requirements for
recreational vessels. As a result, it is estimated that only
about 25%_of all recreational vessels are now in compliance with
EPA's requirements.
Opposition to the program by the commercial sector has not
been as active as that from the recreational boating community.
Operators of smaller commercial vessels have expressed complaints
similar to those expressed by recreational boaters. The large
commercial vessel operators have complained about the costs and
reliability of MSD systems as compared to the benefits derived
from their use.
Coast Guard enforcement for U.S. commercial vessels has been
adequate to assure the equipment has been installed on the vessel,
primarily because it is done in conjunction with routine pollution
prevention and safety inspections. It is estimated that 90-95%
of U.S. inspected commercial vessels are already in compliance
with the federal requirements for installation of the devices.
This does not necessarily mean that the equipment is maintained
or is functioning properly. The smaller uninspected commercial
vessels, such as fishing boats and tugs, do present some enforcement
problems. Because they are not subject to routine inspections,
their compliance rate may be assumed to parallel that of recreational
vessels, about 25%..
-------
— 8-=
The following discussion evaluates the concerns raised by the
boaters and the reasons why the existing program has not been
particularly successful for recreational vessels. These concerns
are addressed in more detail in Appendix B.
1. The Environmental Impacts of Sewage From Vessels
Although relatively few investigators have studied the effect
of direct discharges of sewage from vessels on water quality,
there is evidence to support a link between sewage discharges
from vessels and resulting shellfish contamination, increased
pathogens in the water column, and increased contamination of
waters frequented by boats, such as marinas.
Human sewage contains a wide variety of bacteria, viruses,
fungi, and worms, some of which are pathogenic. Although most
human enteric tract pathogens will not grow in the aquatic environ-
ment, some will survive long enough to constitute a health hazard.
These pathogens, some of which form spores in their reproductive
cycle, can remain virulent for relatively long periods of time
and may even become enriched in sediments of sewage-contaminated
waters; thus, lakes, reservoirs, impoundments, rivers, and even
coastal zones where untreated sewage is discharged may be a
source of disease organisms.
In addition, the introduction of human sewage into a body of
water increases the concentration of oxygen-demanding substances,
which deplete the amount of oxygen available for desirable aquatic
species. Further, nutrients in the sewage increase the rate of
eutrophication in freshwater lakes, reservoirs, and impoundments,
-------
-9-
and may result in an eutrophic waterbody that is undesirable for
y
human use or activities.
Nevertheless, while it appears that sewage from vessels may
pose environmental problems, these problems are localized.
The problems are greatest in enclosed areas such as marinas,
enclosed bodies of water such as freshwater lakes, and in shellfish
growing waters with heavy vessel traffic. There does not appear
to be a problem with pollution from one state affecting another.
No state has cited this problem as a reason for Federal regulation
of vessel pollution.
The environmental impacts of sewage from vessels covered by
the existing program must be placed in perspective. The existing
Federal program only addresses boats with installed toilets. (See
Appendix A). Regardless of the onboard facility, all vessels
have the potential for raw sewage discharge, either by dumping a
portable toilet or a standby bucket over the side, or by bypassing
an approved system. The vast majority of recreational vessels
(7.5 out of 8.2 million boats) do not have installed toilets but
some are equipped with portable toilets. (See Table 1). Most
commercial vessels have installed toilets. Short of requiring
the installation of MSD equipped toilets on vessels and outlawing
_?/ Some boaters argue that the disinfectants associated with
MSD's pose greater environmental problems than does untreated
sewage. However, studies of the existing scientific literature
do not support this argument. Two disinfectants are generally
used in MSD's, formaldehyde and chlorine. The scientific liter-
ature demonstrates that formaldehyde breaks down rapidly in the
natural environment to innocuous substances; and there is little
evidence in the literature that chlorine-based compounds have
deleterious effects in the volumes and at the concentrations at
which they are discharged from MSD's. These arguments are dealt
with in more detail in Appendix B, at B-5 - B-7.
-------
-Da-
Table 1
Categorization of Vessels
Vessel length
(feet)
Number of
vessels
Number of
vessels with
installed
toilets
less than
16
5 million
very few
16-26
2.9 million
less than
600,000
26-40
225,000
approx.
112,500
40-65
30,000
approx.
30,000
nore than
65
less than
1000
same as
above
Totals
approx.
8.2 million
approx.
750,000
-------
-10-
portable toilets, little can be done to eliminate raw sewage
discharges from the vast majority of recreational vessels which
do not have installed toilets.
2. Boaters* Objections to Specific Requirements
In addition to arguing that the environmental impacts from
vessel sewage do not justify the present regulations, the boating
community and marina operators have specific complaints about
the particular types of devices required by the regulations.
Some boaters believe that Type I MSB's 8/ are too expensive, have
substantial maintenance problems, are too complex, and can have
unduly burdensome power and space requirements. These concerns
are evaluated below.
a. Costs
Type I MSD's can cost between $500 and $1500 to purchase
and install, with annual operating and maintenance costs of
approximately $20. Type II MSD's are even more expensive- A
Type III device costs approximately $350 to purchase and install
and has annualized operating and maintenance costs of approximately
$45, including the costs of pumpouts. Over an assumed ten-year
functional lifespan, a Type I MSD will have annualized costs
that are 50% higher than those for a Type III MSD ($120 vs.
$80).
Larger commercial vessels will install either Type II or
Type III MSD's, which can have purchase and installation or
8/ This discussion focuses primarily on Type I and Type III MSD's
Hecause either of these is acceptable under the existing regulations
and Type II's are generally unavailable for all but the largest
vessels.
-------
-11-
retrofitting costs up to $200,000. 9/ Tne annualized operating
and maintenance costs of such devices are approximately $500.
b. Reliability,, Complexity, Space, and Power Constraints
While some earlier models of Type I MSD's were susceptible
to breakdowns, the newer models are generally more reliable if
the vessel owner follows simple rules of operation. MSD's for
recreational vessels have always been relatively simple to
operate.
The installation of any MSB requires a certain amount of
space on a vessel. Space constraints may be a problem on the
smaller vessels, especially those in the 16 to 30 foot range.
Sailboats, because of their hull configurations, encounter more \
difficulty with installations of MSD's than do power boats. \
While some sailboats have a large enough space to install an
MSDf such as an underbunk locker, on smaller boats even this
much space may be unavailable. Flexible holding tanks can fit
into odd, otherwise unused space but larger holding tanks, and
Type I MSD's, may be difficult to install on smaller boats.
Type I and II MSD's require a source of electric power which
may be in limited supply onboard a vessel. Powerboats can usually
overcome this problem by running the MSD from the engine's gene-
rator but sailboats do not have this option when under sail and
must rely on batteries. Many of the MSD's will impose an unrea-
sonable drain on a battery if the boat is used for more than a
97This figure represents the purchase and installation or
Fetrofit costs for a whole system for a vessel in excess of
400 feet with a normal crew of 30-35 people.
-------
-12-
day or weekend cruise. One manufacturer has attempted to overcome
this problem by introducing a batch storage and treatment system,
avoiding the electrical drain after each use of the head. However,
the boaters, especially sailboaters, remain skeptical and continue
to complain about potential safety problems if their batteries
are used to run an MSB. They fear the loss of electrical power
for the radio and running lights.
c. Complaints Regarding Type ill MSD's (Holding Tanks)
With regard to Type III MSD's, boaters complain about both
safety and aesthetic problems. Boaters complain that the sewage
produces methane gas which could cause the holding tanks to
explode, that the odors from the tanks are offensive, that the
tank could spill and create unsanitary and offensive conditions
while the boat is underway, and that pumpout facilities are
inadequate.
Neither the Agency nor the Coast Guard is aware of any in-
cidences of holding tanks exploding. Chemical deodorants and
biocides can inhibit the production of the small amount of
methane produced as a byproduct of microbial activity. Type III
MSD's are required to be equipped with a vent on the top of the
tank to release any gases produced. These vents must be properly
maintained.
Odors can be controlled by using odor-suppressant chemicals
and by pumping out the tank at regular intervals. The chemicals
should be added to the tank as a part of normal maintenance.
Holding tanks, if constructed properly with baffles to reduce
-------
-13-
movement, and if installed correctly, have no more potential for
spilling than do other installed tanks, such as fuel or water
tanks.
The boaters' main objection to holding tanks is that pump-
out facilities in most parts of the United States are inadequate.
Marina operators do not want to install the facilities, especially
if demand is not sufficient to justify the expense. We estimate
that if pumpout facilities are installed and fully utilized, they
can pay for themselves over approximately five years. This assumes
that an automatic pumpout facility costs approximately $10,000,
including capital costs of the facility, interest, and five year
operating and maintenance costs, and that to recover the capital
investment of the facility fully over five years would require
400 pumpout operations at $5 each per year, or an average of 40
pumpout operations per weekend during the boating season. Given
the widespread antagonism of the boating community towards Type
III MSD's, marina owners are concerned that there will not be
such a high demand for pumpout facilities. Thus, a stand-off
situation is created: marina operators will not voluntarily
install pumpout facilities unless they are sure that the facilities
will be fully utilized, and boaters will not install holding
tanks and use pumpout facilities until adequate facilities are
available.
3. Enforcement'Problems
Absent widespread public acceptance of the need for regulation,
a standard's effectiveness is only as great as the effort made to
enforce it. The MSD standards are particularly difficult to enforce '
-------
-14-
because of the large number of vessels and the ease with which
violations of the standards can go undetected. Even if the
proper type of MSB is installed it must be in good working con-
dition and operated properly. An onboard inspection is necessary
to determine if a device is in good working condition and it is
practically impossible to determine if it is being operated
properly. It is easy for vessels to bypass the treatment devices
or holding tanks and discharge raw sewage into the waters when
out of sight from shore and it is very difficult for an enforce-
ment agency to detect such violations.
The Coast Guard does not have a separate enforcement program
for MSB's; all enforcement activities are being conducted in
conjunction with routine pollution prevention, safety, and other
law enforcement boardings and inspections. For U.S. inspected
commercial vessels, this has proven adequate to insure installation
of MSB's since these vessels are routinely boarded while in port
and are also subject to regular inspections prior to issuance of
their certificates of inspection. Smaller, uninspected commercial
vessels, such as fishing boats and tugs, are not subject to
routine inspections. Consequently, enforcement efforts for
these vessels occur on a less frequent basis.
Recreational vessels present a particularly difficult en-
forcement problem because of the overwhelming number of boats.
Inspection teams, called Boating Safety Betachments, routinely
made on-the-water boardings to check for safety compliance and
also check for MSB compliance if the boat has an installed toilet.
The Coast Guard averaged approximately 15,000 boardings annually.
-------
-15-
Even if all of the vessels boarded annually had installed toilets,
an enforcement effort of this type could only reach a small portion
of the 750,000 boats subject to the existing MSB requirements.
Furthermore, the Coast Guard has had to reduce the number of
these inspection teams because of other higher priority activities.
An extensive federal enforcement effort for recreational vessels
is not possible without a substantial infusion of ships, manpower,
and funding for vessel fuel.
V. Impacts on Interstate Commerce and Travel
A major reason for the existing program for MSB's was to
minimize the impacts on interstate travel and interstate commerce
that were associated with conflicting state design and discharge
standards. (See Appendix A for a detailed description of the
development of the existing program). The effects on interstate
commerce and travel of abolishing the existing federal program
are evaluated in the following discussion.
If all federal standards and regulations are abolished, it
is possible that design and discharge standards will differ
substantially from state to state. One state could adopt a Type
I standard; an adjacent state could adopt a variation of the
Type I standard that requires a slight modification of a Type I
device. One state could allow discharges of sewage without
treatment; and another state could require installation of
holding tanks. Thus, the situation would be analogous to that
prior to 1972, when national federal standards were adopted.
-------
-16-
a. Impacts on Interstate Commerce
Interstate commerce may be affected in two ways by differing
state design and discharge standards for waterways. First, the
interstate sales of MSD equipment and MSD equipped vessels may
be adversely affected and second, the interstate movement of
commercial and recreational vessels may be restricted. To the
extent that commercial and recreational vessels are discouraged
from traveling interstate, a burden on interstate commerce will
result. 10/ The burden on interstate commerce associated with
restrictions of interstate travel will be discussed in the next
section entitled "Impacts on Interstate Travel."
In the absence of uniform federal standards and a national
certification program, a burden could be placed on interstate
sales of MSD equipment and MSD equipped vessels. At present, the
statute requires that the Coast Guard promulgate uniform national
design standards which preempt state design standards and provide
a certification program which insures that particular MSD's meet
the federal requirements. In the absence of this program, and
if states adopt different design standards, MSD manufacturers
could have to design devices that would meet each states' standards,
Indeed, if individual localities could impose design standards,
the number of different design standards could increase substan-
tially. This could result in an increase in costs to the manu-
10/Because recreational vessel owners spend money in interstate
commerce when they travel interstate, any restriction of movement
of these vessels across state lines places a burden on interstate
commerce. The restriction of interstate movement by commercial
vessels has even more direct impacts on interstate commerce,
-------
-17-
facturers to interpret and comply with different state regulations
and in a decrease in certainty on the part of the boating community
and marine equipment dealers regarding whether a particular device
meets the standards of a particular state. It is also possible
that if states adopt different design requirements, no particular
device would meet the standards of very many states. Because
retrofitting of vessels is quite expensive, conflicting state
design standards could create difficulties for vessel owners
wishing to move to a different state or to sell their vessels to
buyers outside of a state, ll/ The existing program reduces the
burdens on interstate commerce associated with differing state
design standards.
b. Impacts on Interstate Travel
Both commercial and recreational vessels frequently travel
interstate. If the states are permitted to adopt and enforce
conflicting discharge requirements, interstate travel could be
impeded which could, in turn, affect interstate commerce (See
note 10, supra). Vessels attempting to travel interstate and to
operate their MSD's outside of their home state may be in violation
of one or more states' discharge requirements even if their device
is in compliance with the law in their home state. For example,
vessels with Type I's or II's will violate state discharge standards
if they operate these devices in states with no-discharge require-
ments. Similarly, vessels equipped with no-discharge devices
ll/Retrofitting could also be a problem associated with any
change in the existing program. However, existing vessels'
compliance with new requirements could be deferred.
-------
-18-
will be unable to operate their toilets once their holding tanks
are full in states requiring Type I's unless adequate pumpout
facilities are available.
Several legislative mechanisms exist to minimize these
burdens on interstate travel. These include: 1) have uniform
national discharge standards; 2) allow states to promulgate their
own discharge standards but allow vessels traveling interstate a
grace period during which time no state would be permitted to
enforce discharge standards more stringent than a certain type
(e.g. Type I); or 3) allow both state and federal discharge
standards but allow vessel owners to comply with either the
state or federal standards. Under the second mechanism, a state
would be prevented from enforcing the state's discharge standards
against a vessel from another state until that vessel had been
in the state's waters for more than a certain period of time f
i.e. seven, fourteen, or twenty-one days. Under mechanism number
three, states could only enforce the discharge standard selected
by the vessel owner. Presumably, vessel owners that travel
frequently interstate would select the federal standard since
they would then be in compliance in all states. Vessels that
did not travel frequently interstate could select the standard
of their home state. Any of these mechanisms would reduce the
burden on interstate travel associated with differing state
design and discharge standards for MSB's.
In summary, uniform federal design standards and a national
certification program eliminate the burdens on interstate sales
of MSD equipment and MSB equipped vessels associated with differing
-------
-19-
state design standards. Uniform federal discharge standards
eliminate the burdens on interstate travel associated with differing
state discharge standards. However, the burden on interstate
travel can be reduced by mechanisms not now included in the
existing program that give states more flexibility to determine
the degree of regulation of MSD's appropriate within their borders.
The issue is to develop modifications to the existing program
that would eliminate the concerns raised by vessel owners and
i
manufacturers, and the enforcement problems encountered by the
Coast Guard, yet still reduce the burdens on interstate commerce ;
and travel. J
VI. Options
The Agency has analyzed six alternatives to the existing
program ranging from abolition of all federal requirements for
MSD's to imposing federal no-discharge requirements on commercial
and recreational vessels in all states. The options are ranked
according to increasing degree of federal involvement.
A. Abolish All Federal requirements for MSD's
- States could adopt and enforce their own equipment
design and effluent discharge standards
- No national design standards for manufacturers of MSD's
- No federal involvement in any aspect of MSB enforcement
Consequences:
- Conflicting state standards would impede interstate
commerce and travel 12/
12/ The burden on interstate travel could be eliminated by
ISTopting one of the mechanisms described on page 16, supra.
These mechanisms could be adopted under any of these options.
-------
-20-
- Eliminates the need for federal management and enforcement
of MSD requirements
- Could have localized adverse environmental consequences
in those states with large boating populations that
choose not to regulate discharges from boats
B. Abolish federal MSD discharge requirements for recreational
and small commercial vessels? allow optional state programs
for these vessels based upon federal design standards (Type I,
II, or III) or no program; retain federal MSD requirements
for large (over 65 ft.) commercial vessels
- States could adopt any one of three types of MSD require-
ments for recreational and small commercial vessels
based upon the federal classifications or could decide
not to adopt any standards; large commercial vessels
remain subject to federal requirements
- Retains national design standards for manufacturers
- No federal enforcement of MSD requirements for recreational
and small commercial vessels; federal enforcement for
commercial vessels over 65 feet
Consequences;
- Would eliminate burden on interstate commerce because
retains nationally uniform design standards but would
impede interstate travel because allows conflicting
state discharge standards 13/
- Eliminates need for federal enforcement for recreational
vessels
- Could have adverse localized environmental consequences
in those states with large recreational boating populations
that choose not to regulate sewage discharges from
recreational vessels
C. Allow optional state programs based upon federal design
standards (Type I, II, or III), or no program; also
retain existing federal requirements but vessels owners
may comply with either state or federal requirements
Retains national design standards for manufacturers
No federal enforcement of MSD requirements
13/ See footnote 12.
-------
-21-
Consequences;
Eliminates need for federal enforcement
- Eliminates burden on interstate commerce because retains
national design standards but would impede interstate
travel because allows conflicting state standards 14/
- Could reduce local environmental quality in areas now
designated "no-discharge" because treated effluent
could be discharged
Establish minimum federal Type I discharge standards for
all vessels; states may promulgate more stringent discharge
standards based upon federal design standards
States could adopt more stringent discharge standards
- Retains national design standards for manufacturers
- Federal enforcement of federal standards; states would
enforce more stringent state standards
Consequences;
- Would eliminate burden on interstate commerce because
retains national design standards but would impede interstate
travel 15/
Imposes federal requirements on states that do not view
sewage from vessels as a serious environmental problem
Provides uniform minimum degree of environmental protection
Establish federal Type I discharge standards for all vessels;
states may not 'promulgate more"stringent'discharge requirements
States could not adopt more stringent standards
- Retains national design standards for manufacturers
Retains federal enforcement authority
Consequences:
Eliminates burden on interstate commerce and travel
because of uniform national design and discharge standards
T4~7If vessel owners elect to comply with the federal standards,
Interstate travel would not be impeded. But see footnote 12.
15/ See footnote 12.
-------
-22-
Imposes federal requirements on states that do not
view sewage from vessels as a serious environmental
problem and preempts states that want more protection
Provides uniform minimum degree of environmental protection
but could reduce local environmental quality in areas
now designated "no-discharge" because treated effluent
could be discharged
F. Establish Federal Type III standards; mandate the
installation of pump-out facilities
States could not adopt less stringent discharge
requirements
Retains national design standards for manufacturers
Federal enforcement
Consequences;
Eliminates burden on interstate commerce and travel
because of uniform national standards
Imposes federal requirements on states that do not
view sewage from vessels as a serious environmental
problem
Provides uniform and extensive degree of environmental
protection
If not enforced, or if adequate pumpout facilities
are not available, could create a greater environmental
problem since raw sewage may be discharged in large
quantities from holding tanks
- Would require regulation of an additional class of
persons, marina operators
Ib/ See footnote 12.
-------
APPENDIX A - STATUTORY AND REGULATORY HISTORY
In the 1960 's, states began regulating discharges of sewage
from vessels and requiring the installation of MSD's. Interest
in the regulation of pollution generated by pleasure boats developed
from the local level to the point that in the early 1970's about
thirty states regulated the discharge of sewage from vessels.
The lack of uniformity among these state laws created situations
in which a boater could be in compliance with state discharge
standards on one side of a river and out of compliance on the
other because a neighboring state had different requirements.
Manufacturers of MSD's had to produce devices that met different
state design standards. These problems led to a growing interest
in national, uniform regulations.
A. Early Legislation
The Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, 80 Stat. 1246,
v/hich amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA),
contained the first expressions of congressional concern regarding
sewage pollution from vessels. Section 210 of that Act, 80 Stat.
1252, added a new section 17 to the FWPCA which directed the
Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretaries
of the Army, Commerce, and Health, Education and Welfare, and
with the Coast Guard, to conduct an investigation to determine
the extent of pollution of all navigable waters
of the United States from litter and sewage discharged,
dumped, or otherwise deposited in such waters from
watercraft using such waters, and the methods of abat-
ing either in whole or in part such pollution.
Pursuant to that provision, the Secretary submitted a report to
Congress in August, 1967. S. Rep. No. 48, 90th Cong., 1st Sess.
-------
A-2
(August 1, 1967). The report concluded that legislation was
needed and recommended that the legislation direct the Department
of Interior to promulgate standards for the discharge of sewage
from vessels. Id., at 5.
These recommendations formed the basis for section 13 of
the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 91. Section
13 directed the Federal Water Quality Administration of the
Department of Interior (which less than six months later became
the Environmental Protection Agency) to promulgate standards of
performance for marine sanitation devices which shall be designed
to prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately
treated sewage into or upon the navigable waters of the
United States from new and existing vessels/
except those vessels not equipped with installed
toilet facilities.
States were prohibited from adopting or enforcing any statutes
or regulations governing the design, manufacture, installation,
or use of any MSD on any vessels subject to the statutory require-
ments. However, states could apply to the Administrator for
issuance of a regulation completely prohibiting any discharges
into certain waters of the state.
EPA proposed regulations on May 12, 1971 prohibiting discharges
of sewage from vessels with installed toilets which contain
visible floating, or settleable, solids, coliform bacteria in
excess of 240 per 100 ml, biochemical oxygen demand in excess of
100 mg/1 and suspended solids in excess of 150 mg/1. The preamble
to the proposed regulations noted that flow-through devices
meeting the proposed standards had not yet been developed for
certain smaller classes of vessels but stated that development of
-------
A-3
such devices before the effective date of the standard was within
the limits of available technology. The preamble went on to note
that holding tanks were available on the market and could be used
to meet the standards.
Over 6,000 comments were received in response to the proposed
regulations, and five public meetings were held. During the
comment period, many groups opposed the proposed MSD standards.
The boating public opposed the standards, which would have required
the installation of holding tanks for certain smaller vessels,
because of potential offensive odors associated with the tanks,
the potential danger of explosion from the contained gases, and
the potential for unsanitary conditions resulting from spillage
of the contents of the tank, either while underway or during
pumpout. In addition, the boaters felt that the requirement for
holding tanks only provided an incentive to break the law and
dump the contents of the tank overboard, without treatment,
because pumpout facilities were generally unavailable and because
boaters wanted to avoid the time, inconvenience, and cost of a
pumpout. The U.S. Coast Guard, which under section 13(b)(l)
of the Water Quality Improvement Act was required to enforce the
standards, opposed them because detection of violations of the
law was extremely difficult, and manpower was simply not available
to fully enforce the law.
Despite the opposition to standards requiring holding tanks,
on June 23, 1972, EPA promulgated final standards which provided
for no overboard discharge of sewage into the navigable waters
of the United States from vessels with installed toilets with
-------
A-4
certain limited exceptions. 37 Fed. Reg. 12391. Existing vessels
equipped with Type I's within three years from the date of
promulgation of Coast Guard implementing regulations were not
required to comply with the no-discharge requirements as long as
the Type I remained operable.
B. The Existing Program
In 1972, Congress amended the FWPCA and included the present
requirements for MSD's. Section 13 of the Water Quality Improvement
Act was brought forward with certain amendments as section 312,
33 U.S.C. §1322. Section 312(b)(l) directed EPA to promulgate
standards of performance for MSD's which were to take effect for
new vessels two years from the date of promulgation and for
existing vessels five years from the date of promulgation. 33
U.S.C. §1322(b)(l). The Coast Guard was directed to promulgate
regulations governing the design, construction, and installation
and operation of MSD's, to certify that particular devices meet
the federal design standards, and to enforce EPA's standards of
performance. 33 U.S.C. §§1322(b)(1), (g)(2), and (k).
In addition, the 1972 amendments added two new subparts to
section 312 of the FWPCA under which EPA and the states could
totally prohibit the discharge of vessel sewage into certain
specified waters (Sections 312(f)(3) and (f)(4), 33 U.S.C. §§1322
(f)(3) and (f)(4)). Section 312(f)(3) provides that
if any state determines that the protection
and enhancement of the quality of some or
all of the waters within such state requires
-------
A-5
greater environmental protection, such state
may completely prohibit the discharge from
all vessels of any sewage, whether treated
or not, into such waters, except that no such
prohibition shall apply until the Administrator
determines that adequate facilities for the
safe and sanitary removal of sewage from all
vessels are reasonably available for such waters
to which such prohibition would apply.
As of March, 1981, a total of eighteen petitions had been
received by the Agency under section 312(f)(3). Of these, fifteen
were approved, I/ one was denied on procedural grounds, _2/ one
was denied on technical grounds, 2/ and one is pending. 4/
Section 312(f)(4) states that if the Administrator determines
upon application by a state that the protection and enhancement of
the quality of specified waters within such state requires a
prohibition on the discharge of any sewage (whether treated or
not) he shall by regulation completely prohibit such discharge.
The legislative history for this subsection indicates that Congress
intended this special protection to be utilized only for limited
I/ California, 44 Fed. Reg. 26963 (May 8, 1979); Texas, 42
Fed. Reg. 59776 (Nov. 21, 1977); California and Nevada, 42
Fed. Reg. 59105 (Nov. 15, 1977); Minnesota, 42 Fed. Reg. 33362
(June 30, 1977); California, 41 Fed. Reg. 34353 (Aug. 13, 1976);
New York, 41 Fed. Reg. 17599 (April 27, 1976); New York, 41
Fed. Reg. 2668 (Jan. 19, 1976); Michigan, 41 Fed. Reg. 2274
(Jan. 15, 1976); Wisconsin, 41 Fed. Reg. 11875 (March 22, 1976);
Vermont, 40 Fed. Reg. 42240 (Sept. 11, 1975); New Hampshire,
40 Fed. Reg. 36797 (Aug. 22, 1975); Missouri, 40 Fed. Reg.
54462 (Nov. 24, 1975).
y Texas, 40 Fed. Reg. 36421 (August 20, 1975).
3/ Minnesota and Wisconsin, jointly, 42 Fed. Reg. 37844 (July
25, 1977).
4/ Virginia, Notice of Receipt of Petition published in
74 Fed. Reg. 67524 (November 26, 1979).
-------
A-6
specified areas, such as drinking water supplies, human body
contact recreation areas, and shellfish beds. EPA has received
three petitions under Section 312(f)(4). Of the three, one has
been approved, S_/ and two were denied on procedural grounds. 6_/
Following passage of the 1972 FWPCA Amendments, EPA
reconsidered its previously promulgated MSD standards of performance.
EPA proposed new standards on October 10, 1975, (40 Fed. Reg.
47972) and after consideration of additional comments, revised
its final standards of performance for marine sanitation devices
on January 29, 1976. (40 C.F.R. Part 140, 41 Fed. Reg. 4453).
EPA's new standards provided that existing vessels (those with
construction initiated before January 30, 1975) equipped with
a Type I device by January 31, 1978 could retain that device
for its operable life. If a Type I was not installed by this
date, then an existing vessel had to install a Type II or III
device by January 30, 1980. * New vessels (those on which construc-
tion was initiated on or after January 30, 1975) were permitted
to install Type I, II, or III systems until January 30, 1980.
After this date, they, too, were restricted to installing Type
II or III systems. These standards apply in coastal waters and
estuaries, the Great Lakes and interconnecting waterways, freshwater
lakes and impoundments accessible through locks, and other flowing
5/ Minnesota, 42 Fed. Reg. 43837 (August 31, 1977).
6/ Minnesota, 42 Fed. Reg. 41833 (September 9, 1975); Michigan
70 Fed. Reg. 36797 (August 22, 1975).
-------
A-7
waters that are navigable interstate by vessels with installed
toilets.
In formulating new standards/ EPA also took into account
the fact that certain water bodies, those with relatively long
detention periods which cannot cleanse themselves easily through
natural processes, should be given a higher degree of protection
than other waters. The 1976 regulations therefore prohibited
the discharge of sewage from vessels in freshwater lakes, reservoirs,
or impoundments whose inlets or outlets prevent the ingress or
egress by vessels with installed toilets, or in rivers not capable
of navigation by interstate vessel traffic.
Existing vessels in waters subject to no-discharge require-
ments were required to install either Type III devices designed to
prevent any discharge, or Type I or II MSB's that had been secured
to prevent discharge, by January 30, 1980. New vessels in these
waters were required to be so equipped by January 30, 1977. How-
ever, even in no-discharge areas, vessels equipped with Type I's
as of the date of promulgation of the standards were permitted
to retain and use the devices for the life of the device.
Some boaters believed that EPA would not retain the MSD
deadline. When it became evident towards the end of 1977 that
the Agency intended to retain the deadline, there was a considerable
demand for Type I MSD's. As a result, there were not enough
devices available at retail dealers for all potential customers.
Consequently, the Coast Guard, with EPA's concurrence, issued a
waiver pursuant to section 312(c)(2) on November 28, 1977, which
-------
A-8
stated that if the owner of an existing vessel made a "firm
commitment for the purchase and placement of" a Type I MSD prior
to January 30, 1978, he then had until January 30, 1979 to install
that device in an operable condition. 42 Fed. Reg. 60619. If
the conditions of the waiver were met, the owner would be considered
in compliance with both the Coast Guard regulations and the EPA
standards.
In addition, it became apparent that there were very few
Type II MSB'S available for small vessels. As a result, the
Coast Guard issued a second waiver on July 10, 1978, also with
the concurrence of EPA, which stated that the Type II MSD require-
ment for vessels 65 feet in length or less was being waived
until adequate Type II MSD's become available for smaller vessels.
Consequently, owners of vessels 65 feet in length or less had
and still have the option of installing Type I MSD's in lieu of
the originally required Type II or III MSD's. 43 Fed. Reg. 29637.
-------
APPENDIX - B - TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
A. Introduction
The agency was asked to evaluate the existing program and
alternative methods of regulating discharges of sewage from vessels.
In an effort to be responsive to the Committee and to examine
as broad a range of information as possible/ the Agency used
a contractor, JRB Associates, Inc., to collect and perform pre-
liminary analyses on a wide range of data. These analyses included:
. searching thirteen computer files consisting of over 10,000
entries for relevant information in the existing scientific
literature on the effects of sewage discharges from
recreational vessels on the aquatic environment;
. conducting supplemental library research to identify
secondary data sources not covered by the automated
literature searches;
. examining the results of a survey conducted in the spring
of 1980 by a major manufacturer of MSD's to determine attitudes
among boating equipment retailers and the public regarding
purchase and installation of MSD's;
. examining the results of a survey conducted in the summer
of 1980 by a contractor for the U.S Coast Guard to determine
the concerns of selected elements of the marine industry
regarding utilization of MSD's; and
. expanding that survey by contacting individuals identified
from the literature, Federal and State governmental personnel,
and other sources especially knowledgeable about specific
topics. State officials contacted were involved in some
-------
B-2
aspect of vessel management, and included state boating
law administrators/ chiefs of marine police, and directors
of state departments of natural resources and environmental
protection.
The results of this analysis are summarized below.
A. Pathogens and Viruses
The role of pathogens in human sewage discharged to the aquatic
environment from vessels is crucial in any discussion of the
installation and implementation of MSD's for recreational vessels.
Many boaters contend that there is no scientific literature that
demonstrates that overboard discharge of untreated human sewage
results in increased disease transmission or adverse health effects.
Some boaters even argue that the discharge of untreated sewage is
desirable, since it provides nutrients for aquatic organisms.
However, such arguments do not appear to be supported by any
corroborating evidence in the scientific literature.
Because of their universal presence in the human enteric
tract and because they are easily identified and counted, coliform
bacteria have been utilized for much of the twentieth century as
an indicator of fecal contamination. Although pathogenic organisms
such as Salmonella sp., Shigella sp., Entamoeba sp., and Vibrio
sp., are not usually numerically tabulated when fecal analyses
are performed, the level of fecal coliform bacteria in sewage is
universally assumed to indicate potential levels of pathogens such as
the four identified above. Evidence in the scientific literature
corroborates a link between the presence of fecal coliform bacteria
in the aquatic environment and the discharge of human sewage.
-------
B-3
D.E. Kidd ("Bacterial Contamination of Lake Powell Waters: An
Assessment of the Problem", NTIS, PB 261-682, 1975), demonstrated
an increase in both fecal coliform and fecal streptococci bacteria
in areas of Lake Powell, Arizona, frequented by boaters. These
increased bacterial levels occurred during the summer months in
areas of high boating activity. W.N. Mack et al. ("Pollution
of a Marina Area by Watercraft Use as Indicated by Coliform and
Chemical Concentrations", NTIS, PB 200-622, 1971), studied the
waters surrounding a marina on a small Michigan Lake prior and
subsequent to heavy use on major boating weekends. The investigators
found significant increases in fecal coliform bacteria in the
marina slips that were used most often. Authors of the Rhode
Island Water Quality Management Plan (1978) reported many cases
of increases in fecal coliform bacteria in shellfish beds which
lay beneath areas of heavy boating use. Increases in fecal
coliform counts in shellfish tissue and the water column were
found, for example, after the Labor Day weekend that were directly
proportional to usage of those areas by the boating population.
R.D. Barbero et al. ("Bacteriological Water Quality of Several
Recreational Areas in the Ross Barnett Reservoir", J.W.P.C.F.,
41:1330, 1969), in a study of marina and non-marina waters in a
Mississippi reservoir, found significantly higher fecal coliform
and fecal streptococci bacterial counts in the marinas than in
local areas of the reservoir. Other studies that demonstrate
that marine pleasure craft contribute to environmental pollution
include:
(1) Furfari, S.A., Northeast Marine Health Services Laboratory,
U.S. Public Health Service, "Boat Waste Survey, Potter Cove,
Rhode Island, Summer, 1968," 1969.
-------
B-4
(2) Cassin, J. , et a_l., Environmental Letters, 2(2):59-63,
1971, "Sanitary Implications of Small Boat Pollution in
an Atlantic Estuary."
(3) Bowerman, F.R., and Chen, K.Y., University of California
Environmental Engineering Program, Report No. USC-SG-4-71,
"Marina del Ray: A Study of Environmental Variables in
a Semi-Enclosed Coastal Estuary," 1971.
(4) Furfari, S.A., Northeast Marine Health Services Laboratory,
U.S. Public Health Service, "Problems of Boat Wastes
and the National Shellfish Sanitation Program," 1968.
A number of other studies were reviewed but they were
inconclusive. In addition, contraction of hepatitis as a result
of ingestion of oysters and other shellfish which have been
obtained from waters contaminated by human sewage has been well-
documented for a number of years. Further, it is well-known
that viruses often pass through the human enteric tract in an
extremely virulent state, and that diseases such as poliomyelitis
and enteric infections caused by Coxsackie and Echo viruses are
transmitted via aquatic routes. Both epidemiologic and localized
investigations of the discharge of sewage into the aquatic environ-
ment demonstrate the increase in pathogens and the resultant
potential for increased disease. The conclusion that is reached
as a result of this analysis is that environmental and health
effects from discharges of sewage from vessels are localized.
Each of the scientific studies cited above demonstrated
environmental or health effects within a single body of water or
a localized area of a larger aquatic ecosystem. While the environ-
mental and health effects may have been adverse in the location
of the discharge, the studies did not conclude that there were
adverse effects beyond this local area.
-------
B-5
2. Chemical Disinfectants
As in nearly all onshore municipal sewage treatment plants,
most Type I MSD's employ disinfectant chemicals in their treatment
of sewage. The purpose of these disinfectant chemicals is to
reduce the pathogen content of the sewage before it is discharged
to the aquatic environment. The chemicals are mixed with the
waste, which is then macerated by blades turning at high speeds;
The disinfectant mixture is then discharged into the aquatic
environment. Sometimes the disinfected mixture is stored until
a specific tank capacity is reached. A range of chemicals has
been employed in Type I MSD's. The most common disinfectants
presently employed are chlorine (in the form of sodium hypochlorite
tablets or liquid) and formaldehyde (in the form of formalin,
which is a 40% solution of formaldehyde).
The boating community has argued that these disinfectant
chemicals when discharged cause more harm to the aquatic environ-
ment than raw sewage. The boating community argues that the
'chlorine compounds and formaldehyde utilized in MSD's are well-known
systemic toxicants, and that even the small quantities discharged
cause adverse effects in larval and juvenile fish and shellfish,
as well as in other aquatic species.
The toxic properties of chlorine, its compounds, and
formaldehyde have been documented for over one hundred years.
It is precisely these toxic properties that are desired when
such chemicals are added to sewage for disinfection and public
health purposes. Studies have shown that there may be circumstances
-------
B-6
under which the concentrations of chlorine residuals in water
may reach the acute toxicity range for a number of species in
the aquatic environment. However, the studies which demonstrate
environmental damage from chlorine residuals were based on large
shore-based discharges.
Data available on formaldehyde indicates it may be less of
an environmental hazard than previously believed. The disinfectant
properties of formaldehyde come from its ability to denature
proteins, thus altering the chemical structure of the protein
and its previously toxic nature. In addition, formaldehyde
reacts in both oxidative and reductive chemical environments.
In the oxidative environment of aerated surface waters, formalde-
hyde oxidizes rapidly to formic acid, which is less toxic than
formaldehyde. In the reductive environment of human sewage,
where the available oxygen is rapidly consumed by the BOD (biological
oxygen demand) of the waste, formaldehyde disinfects the sewage
and in the process is converted to methyl alcohol, which is
rapidly biodegradable. Further, formaldehyde is fully miscible
in water and is photosensitive; thus, any unreacted formaldehyde
discharged to the aquatic environment will rapidly mix with
surface water and will be degraded by the action of sunlight.
Although specific environmental degradation rates for formaldehyde
have not been determined, it is known that the potential for bio-
accumulation of formaldehyde is low, thus presenting minimal
long-term environmental hazards. In addition, it should be noted
that formaldehyde is a normal human metabolite; some of its
resultant products are amino acids.
-------
B-7
Most of the disinfectant chemicals used in MSB's are consumed
or changed during the chemical processing of the wastes. As was
noted above, both sodium hypochlorite and formalin react chemically
with sewage and are changed in the process to relatively harmless
substances. Thus, the quantity of the chemical discharged is
not equivalent to the amount added to the MSB. It is unlikely
that these chemicals will cause any significant adverse effects
in the small concentrations in which they are found in the environ-
ment when used to disinfect sewage from watercraft.
B. Surveys Conducted by the Coast Guard and JRB Associates
The Office of Merchant Marine Safety of the U.S. Coast Guard
has contracted with the Bavid Taylor Naval Ship Research and Bevelop-
ment Center (BTNSRBC) to determine the concerns of the marine
industry regarding MSB's on recreational vessels of less than 65
feet in length. In the late summer of 1980, the BTNSRBC sent
questionnaires to 28 MSB manufacturers, 46 powerboat and 23 sail-
boat manufacturers, and 10 boating organizations to determine the
immediate concerns of these groups regarding the use of MSB's on
recreational vessels less than 65 feet in length. While the
BTNSRBC study is still continuing, the Coast Guard has provided
copies of the responses to the original questionnaires to assist
EPA in preparing this paper.
The BTNSRBC questionnaire was sent to a total of 107 potential
respondents. High responses were received from the survey: 61
percent of the MSB manufacturers returned completed forms, as
did 39 percent of both power and sailboat manufacturers and 30
-------
B-8
percent of the boating organizations. The high rate of response
eliminated the need for the contractor to seek primary data from
similar sources. Instead, efforts were concentrated on discussing
various aspects of MSD policies with appropriate officials in
each of the fifty states.
The MSD and vessel manufacturers, as might be expected, were
well aware of the issues pertaining to MSD's, especially regulatory
and enforcement problems. Most of the State personnel were also well
informed about the regulatory issues pertaining to MSD's at both
the state and Federal level. This was particularly true of those
individuals in states where water quality issues have a high priority,
such as those states with EPA-certified "no discharge" waters.
The vessel and MSD manufacturers were asked to rate the
importance of a number of characteristics of MSD's for both power
and sailboat applications. Simplicity of operation was viewed by
the largest number as the key factor for powerboats; physical
size and power requirements were viewed by the largest number as
the key factor for sailboats. Small sailboats might have problems
meeting the power requirements of an MSD without an additional
power source that adds undesirable weight to the boat. When the
state personnel were asked a similar question, to identify the
major factors discouraging the use of MSD's, half the state
personnel (49%) identified the lack of pumpout facilities for
vessels equipped with holding tanks. The next most frequently
mentioned reason was the cost of the devices.
It is important to note that none of the reasons cited reflect
on the need for MSD's, or the validity of the program in general.
-------
B-9
The mechanical and operational characteristics of the devices are
the prime concern. Further, it appears that any strengthening of
the Federal MSB program to require holding tanks on more vessels
would not be welcomed; the pumpout facilities to accept the wastes
are not in place in most areas.
When the issue of enforcement was raised, 100% of the MSD
manufacturers and 66% of the vessel manufacturers stated that
they believed that "moderate" or "strict" enforcement measures
are required to ensure the installation and proper use of MSD's.
Similarly, nearly half (45%) of the state respondents stated that
they favored stricter enforcement of the MSD regulations. Only
16% of the state respondents said they opposed stricter enforcement
of the Federal MSD regulations. The reasons identified by the state
personnel were that the regulations were not being adequately
enforced at the present time by the Coast Guard; and that certain
waters, such as shellfish beds and drinking water supplies, need
greater protection. Many state personnel indicated that the
state should concentrate on enforcing the MSD regulations in the
state, and that the Coast Guard should enforce the regulations
on the major navigable and surrounding waters of the state.
Finally, it is important to note that when the state personnel
were asked about the existence of state MSD laws prior to the
implementation of Federal standards and regulations in 1976,
82% of the state respondents said that their state had had their
own laws regulating sewage discharges from vessels; further, 63%
-------
B-10
of the respondents said their laws had been more stringent than
the current Federal MSD standards and regulations.
Thus/ what many states are clearly concerned about is efficient
MSD's that are acceptable to the boating community, and in certain
areas of the United States, stricter enforcement against violators
of MSD regulations, whether those regulations are federally or
state controlled.
------- |