OCTOBER, 1981                           PREPARED BY:
                                         U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL
                                         PROTECTION  AGENCY


     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


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.


     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.

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.


     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.


    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).


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



     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).


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%..


    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,

and may result in an eutrophic waterbody that is undesirable for
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.

       Table 1
Categorization of Vessels
Vessel length
Number of
Number of
vessels with
less than
5 million

very few
2.9 million

less than


nore than
less than

same as
8.2 million



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.


     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


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
    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.


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


     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


     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


movement, and if installed correctly, have no more potential for

spilling than do other installed tanks, such as fuel or water


     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


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  '


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.


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.


     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,


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.


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


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
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


      - 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.


      - 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


      - 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

      - 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.



           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


     -  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


        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.


        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

        Retains national design standards for manufacturers

        Federal enforcement


        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

        Provides uniform and extensive degree of environmental

        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.


     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.


(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


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

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

          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).


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).


waters that are navigable interstate by vessels with installed


     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


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


     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.

    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


       aspect of vessel management, and included state boating

       law administrators/ chiefs of marine police, and directors

       of state departments of natural resources and environmental


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.


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


     (1) Furfari, S.A., Northeast Marine Health Services Laboratory,
         U.S. Public Health Service, "Boat Waste Survey, Potter Cove,
         Rhode Island, Summer, 1968," 1969.

     (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.


      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


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.


     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


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.


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%


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.