FINAL REPORT
ANALYSIS OF WASTEWATER DISCHARGE
FROM MARINE SANITATION DEVICES
Submitted to:
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Analysis and Evaluation
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
EPA Contract No. 68-01—6347, Work Assignment 1
JRB Contract No. 2-814-03-762-01
Submitted by:
JRB Associates, Inc.
8400 Westpark Drive
McLean, Virginia 22102
April 17, 1981
-------
The research contained in this report was performed
pursuant to Contract No. 68-01-6347, Work Assignment
No. 1, with the Office of Analysis and Evaluation,
United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent
the views of the Agency.
JRB Associates, lnr
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completingj
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA 440/5-81-013
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
PB82-1^8072
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
"Analysis of Wastewater Discharge from Marine
Sanitation Devices"
5. REPORT DATE
Aptnl 1981; Date of approval
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
039054
7. AUTHOR(S)
N/A
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
JRB Associates, Inc.
8400 Westpark Drive
McLean, VA 22102
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
JRB No. 2-814-03-762-01
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
EPA No. 68-01-6347, WA1
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Analysis & Evaluation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tech. Adv.
401 M Street, S.W. Jonathan Amson
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report; Period N/A
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
N/A
16. ABSTRACT Tu . , . , ,
This report presents data pertinent to analyzing alternative Federal
policies for regulating the discharge of human wastes from recreational watercraft.
The study indicates that low compliance with the current marine sanitation device (MSD)
regulations is the result of deliberate resistance, uncertainty about the finality of
the current regulations, & doubt that the regulations will be effectively enforced.
The report indicates that pleasure boats, -particularly PTfTen congregated in relatively
s low-riToving waters, such as marina basins or inlets with minimal current or Liual
action, can produce unacceptable fecal coliform concentrations. This is of particular
concern because shellfish can accumulate sewage-borne microorganisms, rendering the
shellfish unacceptable for human consumption. Of the two major disinfectant chemicals
commonly used in MSD's (chlorine & formaldehyde), only chlorine has been shown to be
toxic in the aquatic environment, but only in discharges from large shore-based facili-
ties, such as sewage treatment plants. No study was found linking either chlorine or
formaldehyde, when used as MSD disinfectants, with effects on the environment. MSD
testing, which is conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard, has shown that if an MSD is proper
installed & operated, concerns about odors, explosion from trapped gas, & constant
maintenance are unwarranted. The report contains a bibliography of 145 entires, divided
into seven pertinent sections.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. cosati Field/Group
Sewage treatment; water pollution; waste
water; water pollution
Marine sanitation device:
wastewater analysis;
vessel discharges
; Marine
engineering;
civil
engi neeri ng
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report/
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
181
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii
1. INTRODUCTION 3
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT 3
1.2 CONSTRAINTS, APPROACH, AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3
1.2.1 Constraints 3
1.2.2 Approach 4
1.2.3 Acknowledgements 4
1.3 BACKGROUND 4
1.3.1 Issues 4
1.3.2 The Pleasure Boating Industry 5
1.3.2.1 Number of Pleasure Craft
in the United States 7
1.3.3 Overview of Marine Sanitation Technology 8
1.3.3.1 Type I Devices 8
1.3.3.2 Type II Devices 9
1.3.3.3 Type III Devices 10
1.3.4 Legislative Background 11
1.3.4.1 Initial MSD Regulations 11
1.3.4.2 The Current MSD Regulation Progran 15
2. SECONDARY DATA - TECHNICAL DISCUSSION OF MARINE SANITATION
DEVICES (MSD'S) 19
2.1 RESEARCH STRATEGY 21
2.1.1 Conputer Search 21
2.1.2 Library Search and Other Information Retrieval 22
2.2 SCIENTIFIC ISSUES 24
2.2.1 Sewage Discharge to the Aquatic Environment 24
2.2.1.1 Effects of Sewage from
Recreational Watercraft 25
2.2.2 Microbial Contamination 25
2.2.2.1 General Effects of Pathogens
on Aquatic Environmental Quality 26
2.2.2.2 The Contribution of Recreational
Watercraft in Fecal Coliform Assays 28
2.2.3 Disinfectant Chemicals in the Aquatic Environment.... 30
2.2.3.1 General Discussion on the Effects of
Disinfectant Chemicals 30
2.2.3.2 Effect of Disinfectant Discharge from
Watercraft 36
i
JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
2.3 ENGINEERING STATE OF THE ART 36
2.3.1 Physical Constraints on MSD's 36
2.3.1.1 Space 38
2.3.1.2 Weight 38
2.3.1.3 Power Requirements 38
2.3.1.4 Additional Physical Considerations 39
2.3.2 Performance Data . 39
2.4 COST CONSIDERATIONS 41
2.4.1 Cost Parameters 43
2.4.1.1 Type I and III Devices Only 43
2.4.1.2 Investment, Operation and Maintenance 44
2.4.1.3 Size of Boat 44
2.4.1.4 Effective Date of Regulations 46
2.4.1.5 Boats with Permanently Installed Toilets....46
2.4.1.6 Portable Toilets 46
2.4.1.7 Estimating 1980 and Beyond 48
2.4.2 Estimated Cost of Total Compliance with Existing
Federal Regulations As of the End of 1979 48
2.4.3 Historic Costs of Policy Alternatives 48
2.5 "POPULAR PRESS" REPORTING OF THE MSD ISSUE 54
2.5.1 Environmentalists' Positions 54
2.5.2 Boating Interest Group Positions 55
2.5.3 Other Interest Groups 58
3. PRIMARY DATA ON KEY MSD INTEREST GROUPS 61
3.1 OBJECTIVE OF PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION 6 3
3.2 IDENTIFICATION OF THE "KEY PUBLICS" INVOLVED IN MARINE
SANITATION 63
3.2.1 U.S. Coast Guard MSD Survey 64
3.2.2 Limitations of the Primary Data 65
3.2.3 Discussions with State Officials Concerning
MSD Matters 65
3.3 OVERALL PERCEPTIONS OF THE MARINE POLLUTION PROBLEM 67
3.3.1 Effect of Regulation on MSD Compliance 69
3.3.2 Level of Enforcement Needed 69
3.4 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF MSD OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS 73
3.5 PRESENT STATUS OF STATE MSD-RELATED PROGRAMS 82
3.6 VIEWS CONCERNING A POSSIBLE CHANGE IN THE FEDERAL ROLE
IN MSD REGULATION 8 7
JRB Associates, Inc.
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
APPENDICES
A. DISTRIBUTION OF PLEASURE BOATS IN" THE UNITED STATES
B. ENGINEERING STATE OF THE ART
C. METHODOLOGY TO DETERMINE THE TOTAL COST OF THE FEDERAL MSD REGULATION
D. CURRENT FEDERAL MSD REGULATIONS
E. SUMMARY OF STATE LAWS GOVERNING WASTE DISPOSAL FROM WATERCRAFT
Part A: 1971 U.S. Summary
Part B: 1981 U.S. Summarv
Part C: Overview of Marine Sanitation Regulations of the
Province of Ontario, Canada
F. BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES
JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
1.1 OUTDOOR ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION
1.2 PLEASURE BOATS IN THE UNITED STATES - 1979
SUMMARY BY REGION
1.3 COMPLIANCE DEADLINES FOR INSTALLATION OF MSD's
ABOARD WATERCRAFT
2.1 COMPUTER SEARCH STRATEGY 23
2.2 CONCENTRATION OF AS HOC1 REQUIRED FOR 99% KILL OF
E_. COLI AND THREE ENTERIC VIRUSES AT 0 TO 6°C 32
2.3 COMPARISON OF THE GERMICIDAL EFFICIENCY OF HYPOCHLOROUS
ACID, HYPOCHLORITE ION, AND MONOCHLORAMIKE FOR 99 PERCENT
DESTRUCTION OF _E. COLI AT 2 TO 6°C 32
2.4 ACUTE AND CHRONIC TOXICITY THRESHOLD FOR MARINE AND
FRESHWATER ORGANISMS EXPOSED TO CHLORINE 33
2.5 DEGRADATION PROCESS FOR CHLORINE IN SALINE WATER 34
JRB Associates, Inc. ¦
iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
2.1 PATHOGENIC ORGANISMS COMMONLY FOUND IN WASTEWATER 27
2.2 CERTIFIED MARINE SANITATION DEVICES SUITABLE FOR USE ON
SMALL VESSELS 37
2.3 RESULTS OF CRUISING WORLD'S MSP SURVEY 40
2.4 ESTIMATED INVESTMENT, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
COSTS BY BOAT SIZE (CURRENT DOLLARS) 4 5
2.5 ESTIMATES OF THE BOATS AFFECTED BY THE FEDERAL
MSD REGULATIONS 1977 TO 1979 47
2.6 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF BOATS REQUIRING MSD'S
MANUFACTURED EACH YEAR SUBSEQUENT TO 1979 4 9
2.7 ESTIMATED TOTAL COMPLIANCE COST OF FEDERAL MSD REGULATION
OVER 1977 - 1979 PERIOD 50
2.8 ESTIMATED COST OF 100% COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL MSD
REGULATIONS EACH YEAR AFTER 1979 51
2.9 ESTIMATED COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE POLICY
OPTIONS OVER THE 1977 - 1979 PERIOD 53
3.1 BREAKDOWN OF RESPONSE TO U.S. COAST GUARD MSD SURVEY 64
3.2 GENERAL OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY OF STATE PERSONNEL
CONTACTED ON MSD ISSUES 66
3.3 PERCEPTION OF PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD MSD REQUIREMENTS....68
3.4 PERCEPTION OF THE IMPACT OF REGULATIONS Of: INSTALLATION
OF MSD'S ON" PLEASURE CRAFT 70
3.5 PERCEPT T i">N OF DEGREE OF ENFORCEMENT HE QUIRED TO ENSURE
PROPER USE OF TYPE II MSD 7 1
3.6 ESTIMATION OF PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL
VESSELS WITH MSD'S 7 2
3.7 MAJOR FACTORS DISCOURAGING THE USE OF MSD'S 74
3.8 MSD PRICE RANGE ESTIMATES 7 5
3.9 RELATIVE IMPORTAN'Ci: OF MS,1) (TYPE II) OPERATING
CHARACTERISTICS 7 7
3.10 REASONS TYPE I FLOW-THROUGH MSD SELECTED
OR NOT SELECTED 7 8
3.11 REASONS TYPE II FLOW-TIIRO'JGH MSD SELECTED
OR NOT SELECTED 7 9
3.12 REASONS TYPE III-HOLDINC TANK MSD SELECTED
OR NOT SELECTED 80
3.13 REASONS TYPE II[-RECIRCULATING MSD SELECTED
OR NOT SELECTED 81
JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
3.14 EXISTENCE OF STATE LAWS REGULATING SEWAGE DISCHARGE
FROM WATERCRAFT PRIOR TO FEDERAL PREEMPTION 83
3.15 PROBABLE CHANGE IN STATE'S POLICY REGARDING MARINE
SEWAGE DISPOSAL 84
3.16 EXPLANATION OF POSITION REGARDING CHANGE OF STATE
MARINE SEWAGE DISPOSAL POLICY 85
3.17 STATE SUPPORT FOR STRICTER COAST GUARD ENFORCEMENT
OF MSD REGULATIONS 86
3.18 EXPLANATION OF POSITION REGARDING LEVEL OF COAST
GUARD ENFORCEMENT 88
3.19 THE STATES' VIEW OF CURRENT FEDERAL MSD REGULATIONS 89
3.20 STATE RESPONSE IF THE FEDERAL MSD REGULATIONS
WERE ELIMINATED 90
JRB Associates, Inc.
vi
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
vi i
JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents data pertinent to analyzing the desirability of
alternative Federal policies for regulating the discharge of human wastes from
recreational watercraft. The purpose of the report is to provide EPA
personnel with a data base from which to develop a policy options paper on
marine sanitation device (MSD) regulations. The report was compiled over a
seven week period in fulfillment of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
contract number 68-01-6347, Work Assignment 1. The reader is cautioned that
the findings and projections presented in this report are intended to provide
policy guidance and are not finely tuned estimates derived from large-scale
statistical sampling and original scientific research.
In response to the Work Assignment, the data presented address the
following basic issues relative to discharge of sewage from recreational
watercraf t:
• Legislative background;
• Interest group opinions and positions;
• Human health and aquatic effects;
• Engineering state-of-the-art; and
• Regulatory compliance costs.
The methodology for data collection consisted of: (1) interrogating machine
readable literature data bases containing references to over 10,000 documents;
(2) supplemental library research to try to identify secondary data sources
not covered by the automated literature searches; and (3) contacting indivi-
duals identified from the literature, Federal and State government personnel,
and other sources especially knowledgeable about specific topics. Production
of this report in the limited time available was greatly facilitated by the
Merchant Marine Technical Division (G-MMT-3) and the Prevention and
Enforcement Division (G-WPE-1) of the U.S. Coast Guard; the David W. Taylor
Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Annapolis Laboratory, that is
conducting MSD research work for the Coast Guard; and the EPA technical
advisor, Jonathan Amson, who guided the overall project and the review of the
information EPA had compiled on this subject.
Legislative Background. Interest in regulation of pollution generated by
pleasure boats developed from the State level to the point that in the early
ipp /w~-;oi-Qr inc. '
ix
-------
1970's about 30 States regulated the discharge of sewage from boats. The lack
of uniformity among these State laws created situations in which a boater
could be in compliance on one side of a river and out of compliance on the
other; this lead to a growing interest in national, uniform MSD regulations.
In 1975 and 1976, the Federal government promulgated the current regulations,
which: (1) classify waters as either "treated effluent" or "no-discharge;"
and (2) mandate that all boats with permanent toilets have installed either
Type I or Type II MSD's for treated effluent waters, and Type III MSD's for
no-discharge waters. EPA is responsible for promulgation of MSD standards of
performance and the U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for certification of MSD's
and enforcement of the regulations. Very little data could be found regarding
compliance with these regulations, but they are widely acknowledged to be
poorly enforced and ignored by many boaters (e.g., one source estimates
national compliance at 25% currently).
Interest Group Positions. The primary and secondary research for this
study indicates that low compliance with the MSD regulations is the result
of: deliberate resistance; a high degree of uncertainty and ambiguity about
the finality of the current regulations (i.e., the requirements may change
again); and doubt that MSD regulations will ever be effectively enforced.
The research did not locate any statistically valid surveys of the atti-
tudes of boaters and non-boaters, or of any other key interest group,
concerning MSD's. However, the positions of the key groups can be charac-
terized as follows, based on views expressed in available non-random surveys,
in articles and books, and in discussions held during the course of this
project with many people knowledgeable about MSD's:
• Boaters and major boating organizations are regarded as opposing the
MSD regulations because many boaters contend that:
- they do not make a consequential addition to the pollution loading
of the freshwater and marine environments
MSD technology is still undeveloped posing a weight, space,
maintenance, and safety (to the extent it is believed the devices
may explode from trapped gas) burden on boaters who often use their
craft only several months a year
- they are the target of overly zealous and misguided government
environmental regulations that should be repealed;
• The non-boating public is viewed as supportive of MSD regulations, but
are not very well-informed about the MSD controversy and are too
IRR Associates, lnc.__
x
-------
diffuse a group to counter the impact of the well-organized national
boating interest groups;
• MSP manufacturers and boat manufacturers are confused with respect to
how to plan in light of changing requirements and generally believe
that much stricter enforcement will be required to gain compliance
with the current regulations; and
• States doubt the Federal government's ability to enforce the MSD
regulations. While the Federal regulations supercede those of the
States, a majority of State officials believe that the Federal govern-
ment's level of enforcement is not sufficient to protect State
waters. In fact, more than half of the States contacted indicated
that their State had discharge regulations that equalled or surpassed
the Federal regulations in stringency and none of these officials said
that their State would be unable to mount a viable regulatory program
in the absence of Federal enforcement capabilities.
Health and Aquatic Effects. There is limited research that assesses the
direct effects of sewage discharge from recreational watercraft on the
incidence of waterborne disease and the degradation of the aquatic environ-
ment. None of the studies reviewed directly correlated oxygen depletion,
nutrient levels, and disease incidence with pleasure craft sewage discharge
alone. As a result, the public health justification for requiring MSD's is
largely based on the well-documented health effects resulting from the dis-
charge of sewage from land-based sources.
There are a number of studies that show the contribution of recreational
vessels to increased levels of enteric bacteria (e.g., fecal coliform), which
can be considered as an indirect measure of the potential for waterborne
disease. These studies have shown that pleasure boats, particularly when
congregated in relatively slow-moving waters (e.g., marina basins, inlets with
minimal current or tidal flushing action), can produce unacceptable fecal
coliform concentrations. This is a particular concern because shellfish can
accumulate sewage-borne microorganisms rendering them unfit for human consump-
tion.
No studies have been found in the literature that discuss the effects of
disinfectant discharge from certain MSD's into the environment. Of the two
major disinfectant chemicals commonly used in MSD's — chlorine and formalde-
-------
hyde — only chlorine has been shown to be toxic in the aquatic environment.
However, no study was found linking either chlorine or formaldehyde, when used
as MSD disinfectants, with effects on the environment.
Engineering State-of-the-Art. There are three basic categories of marine
sanitation devices that are identified as Types I, II, and III. Type I and II
MSD's are flow-through devices that produce an effluent meeting a specific
fecal coliform bacteria count per 100 milliliters (currently less than 1,000
for Type I and 200 for Type II). Type I devices must also produce no visible
floating solids. Effluent from Type II devices can contain no more than 150
mg/1 total suspended solids. Type III MSD's are defined as no-discharge
devices. This type covers holding tanks, incineration devices, and recir-
culating devices that retain shipboard wastes for disposal onshore.
Only Types I and III are now available in a wide range of models to fit
recreational vessels. Because of cost and size constraints, Type II devices
are presently unsuitable for the majority of pleasure craft. MSD testing,
which is overseen by the U.S. Coast Guard, has shown that if a MSD is properly
installed and operated, concerns about uncontrollable odors, risk of explosion
from trapped gas, and constant maintenance are unwarranted. Factors other
than the design of the device itself, such as the limited number of pumpout
facilities available to service Type III devices, can limit the application
and acceptance of the available technologies.
Compliance Costs.* A review and analysis of available data related to
the costs of MSD's leads to the following observations:
• Of the approximately eight million pleasure boats registered in the
U.S. today, three million are in the 16 to 65 foot range, and only
about 0.35 million (12%) of these (4% of total boats) could have
been directly affected by Federal regulations over the 1977 to 1979
* Note that the main body of the report presents range (upper and lower bound)
estimates for the number of boats affected by Federal regulations and
related cost estimates. For purposes of brevity, only single range, mid-
point estimates are set out here. An exception is that the estimated total
number of recreational watercraft in the United States ranges from eight to
eleven million. The eight million figure is used here because most, if not
all, of the three million additional watercraft counted in the eleven
million total appear to be under 16' without installed toilets and thus are
not affected by current MSD regulations.
IRR Associates, Inc.
xii
-------
period. From 1979 on, it is estimated that an additional 35,000 newly
manufactured boats would come under current Federal regulations each
year. The numbers are small because only boats with permanently
installed toilets (which are usually at least 22 feet in length) are
covered by the regulations and because most boats use portable toilets or
shore facilities.
Type I devices are more costly than Type III holding tanks, adding an
estimated average of $.1,000 (1.5%) to the initial (investment) cost of
each boat and an average of $18 in annual operating and maintenance
costs.
Type II devices are generally unsuitable for small craft and are more
expensive than Type I devices.
Type III holding tanks (no-discharge) are the least costly with an
estimated average investment cost per boat of $350 (0.5%) and average
annual operating costs of $43.
It would require about 25 years to recoup the investment cost difference
from operating costs savings on the Type I device versus the Type III
device, but boaters appear generally opposed to holding tanks.
A Federal MSD regulation that required all Type III holding tank devices
would cost 50% less than the current regulations (with estimated 100%
compliance costs of $235 million). This assumes 100% compliance by 16'
to 65' boats with installed toilets in both cases and that a mix of Type
I and Type III devices are utilized to comply with current regulations.
Boat owners complain that a major impediment to utilization of holding
tanks is the absence of adequate pumpout facilities. The presence of
pumpout facilities is a Federal requirement for designation of no-
discharge waters by States. Some potential providers of pumpout
facilities claim that demand is insufficient to justify offering the
service. From these positions emerges a stand-off. By way of contrast,
a free market economy would assume that adequate pumpout facilities would
evolve to meet demand; e.g., if holding tanks were mandatory. Options to
broaden the availablity of pumpout services include tax incentives,
guaranteed loans, outright grants, and mandatory provision through
legislation.
-JRB Associates, Inc.
xiii
-------
• A sewage or septic system (now mandatory in most areas) for a summer home
(like a boat, a discretionary leisure expense) is likely to cost $2,000
or more. In comparison, installation of a MSD (even the more costly Type
I) on a pleasure boat is much less expensive than the waste treatment
system a summer home requires.
Substantial additional research would be required to support a firm recom-
mendation regarding any change in the MSD regulations. However, the available
data suggest that if cost/benefit and cost/effectiveness analyses were applied
with respect to MSD's, a recommendation to adopt a uniform Type III holding
tank regulation with almost exclusively local (optional) enforcement would
result.
The final question, of course, is whether there is a compelling case for
changing current Federal policy. Existing legislation provides for delegation
of MSD enforcement to States and designation of no-discharge waters by the
States. The decision to maintain or to change the current MSD requirements is
the prerogative of the U.S. Congress.
xiv
JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1
JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
'PR Associates, lr"~
2
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
This report is produced to satisfy the requirements for Work. Assignment 1
of EPA Contract Number 68-01-5347. The purpose of this Work Assignment is to
assemble existing data and perform related analyses regarding: (1) the effec-
tiveness and acceptability of marine sanitation devices (MSD's); (2) the
alternative roles of the States in setting and enforcing marine sanitation
standards; (3) the scientific justification for marine sanitation standards;
and (4) the impact of MSD regulation on the boating industry and the feasi-
bility of minimizing this impact through alternative forms of regulation. The
data and analyses in this report are intended to serve as supporting
(appendix) material for a MSD policy options paper prepared by the EPA.*
1.2 CONSTRAINTS, APPROACH AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1.2.1 Constraints
The EPA required an unusually quick turnaround time on this project —
seven weeks. In addition, the data collection effort had to be managed with
discretion because of the political sensitivity of the marine sanitation
device issue; continuing strong opposition to the current MSD regulations by
many boaters and boating organizations is anticipated. Other constraints
involve compliance with legislation and regulations regarding data-
gathering. In assessing the information in this report it must be remembered
that the findings and projections presented are intended to provide policy
guidance and are not finely tuned estimates derived from large-scale
statistical sampling and original scientific research.
* Note that all references are contained in the Bibliography in Appendix F;
footnote numbers indicate the sequential listing of the cited reference.
3
JRB Associates, lr"~
-------
1.2.2 Approach |
To accomplish the purpose within the constraints of the effort, both
secondary and primary data were collected. Secondary data were located via
computer assisted literature searches and by review of bibliographies from
identified sources. Primary data were collected by contacting experts on
various topics as determined from a review of the literature and other
sources, acquiring data from a U.S. Coast Guard-sponsored MSD study being
conducted by the David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center
(NSRDC), and by contacting State officials involved in marine sanitation. The
balance of this section presents additional background material. Chapter 2
presents results of the secondary data collection effort supplemented by
information from expert sources. Chapter 3 contains the U.S. Coast
Guard/NSRDC data and analysis as well as input from the State officials.
1.2.3 Acknowledgements
Appreciation is due many individuals and organizations for the contribu-
tions they made to this report, and for making it possible to complete the
task within the time frame and other constraints. Especially noteworthy were
the Merchant Marine Technical Division (G-MMT-3) and the Prevention and
Enforcement Division (G-WPE-1) of the U.S. Coast Guard; the David W. Taylor
Naval Ship Research and Development Center; and Mr. Jonathan Amson, Biological
Service Administrator, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (EPA), who
acted as Technical Advisor on the project. Perhaps needless to say, any
errors that remain are the responsibility of JRB Associates, Inc. and its
primary staff for this project, Dr. Paul Cumming, Mr. Rees Toothman, and Mr.
Daniel Young.
1.3 BACKGROUND
1.3.1 Issues
During the 1960's, pollution from all types of waterborne vessels came
under greater scrutiny as the result of mounting public interest in improving
the quality of the nation's waters. Owing to the rapid growth of recreational
boating as a major American pastime, the wastes discharged from pleasure craft
did not escape attention. Since the initiation of regulations covering sewage
IPP Associates, Inc.—
4
-------
discharges from pleasure craft by several States, laws and regulations
pertaining to marine sanitation have been subjected to criticism from many
quarters. Within the last decade the Federal government has assumed the
principal role in marine sanitation regulation and, today, almost all aspects
of the current Federal requirements for marine sanitation devices on pleasure
craft are the subject of heated debate.
Despite the controversy about marine sanitation regulations, there has
been little attention paid to compiling the body of knowledge regarding the
need for and effectiveness of MSD's on pleasure craft. Among the issues that
need to be addressed by analysis of existing evidence are the following asser-
tions :
• The MSD regulations are difficult if not impossible to enforce;
• The need for and effectiveness of the MSD standards in protecting the
environment has not been adequately demonstrated;
• The means to achieve the MSD standards are not cost-effective; and
• State marine sanitation programs adequately address State needs.
This report is structured to present the data available to examine these
assertions.
The balance of this chapter presents general background material on the
size and characteristics of the pleasure boat population, the basic types of
treatment technology available today, and the legislative history of MSD
regulations.
1.3.2 The Pleasure Boating Industry
Throughout United States history, watercraft have played a significant
role in the shaping of our modern economic system. Today 95% of the nation's
population lives in the 38 States that have commercial transportation services
provided by vessels operating on rivers, canals, bays, sounds or lakes. Of
the 150 cities having populations of 100,000 or more, 131 are located on
85
commercially navigable channels. Ease of access to navigable waterways has
encouraged the growth of recreational boating. The popularity of boating as
an outdoor activity is shown in 1977 data compiled by the U.S. Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service, which is reported in Figure 1.1. That
survey indicated pleasure boating activities attracted more participants than
hunting, golf or tennis. A mid-1970's study predicted recreational boating
'RR Associates, Inc.
5
-------
will continue to be a growing attraction. The study estimated that in 1980,
93 million Americans would go boating, and that by the year 2000, 163 million
131
would participate.
FIGURE
1.1
OUTDOOR ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION (1976-77)
(Millions of People
12 Years or Older)
Activity
Participation
5 Times or More
Canoeing, kayaking, etc.
26.9
9.0
Sailing
19.1
7.8
Water skiing
26.8
13.1
Other boating
57.3
34.3
Fishing
91.0
61.9
Hunting
32.6
24.5
Camping in remote or wilderness areas
36.0
15.0
Camping in developed campgrounds
51.8
21.0
Golf
27.1
18.9
Tennis
55.7
40.9
Riding off-road vehicles
43.6
33.8
Bicycling
79.4
66.1
Going to outdoor sports events
104.3
75.5
Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1980
(101st Edition),
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., 1980
•
Reflecting boating's growing popularity, consumer expenditures on boating
have risen sharply. During the period from 1950 to 1979, the U.S. Gross
National Product grew from $286 billion to $2,369 trillion, an increase of 828
percent.During the same 30 years, it is estimated that the amount of
money Americans spent on boating rose from $680 million^* to $7.5 billion,
an increase of 1103 percent. This rise in consumer spending on boating is
illustrated by the fact that in 1963, when inboard-outdrive cruisers became
111
numerous enough to be counted, sales totaled 8,000 units. In 1979, 89,000
units were sold, an increase of 1113 percent.
The growth of boating is, of course, one reason for concern about the
wastes generated onboard recreational vessels. The balance of this document
focuses on the characteristics of the pleasure boat population; commercial
vessels are governed by the same regulations, but they are outside the scope
of this study.
IRR Accrviatpc Inc.
6
-------
1.3.2.1 Number of Pleasure Craft in the United States
There are now approximately eight million pleasure craft registered in
the United States according to statistics compiled annually by the National
Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA). Because State boating registration
laws differ in terms of the length of the registration period and the types of
craft covered, the NMMA's figures are a best estimate of the registered boat
population in a given year. Because not all waterborne craft must be
registered, it is even more difficult to estimate the total number of vessels
of all types used for recreational purposes (including canoes, inflatable
rafts, etc.). Industry sources indicate that an accounting of all recrea-
tional vessels would add up to a total of approximately 11 million, roughly
three million more than the number accounted for under current State boating
registration laws.
Because all States and U.S. Territories require registration of motor
boats, and the fact that nearly all sailboats large enough to have an
installed toilet also have an auxiliary engine, the population of registered
boats includes virtually all vessels that are covered by the MSD regula-
tions. Figure 1.2 presents a regional summary of the number of pleasure craft
registered in the United States. The number of boats registered in each State
is presented in Appendix A together with a brief description of each State's
registration requirements.
FIGURE 1.2
PLEASURE BOATS IN THE UNITED STATES - 1979
SUMMARY BY REGION
No. of Boats
Percent
New England
Middle Atlantic
Gulf Coast
East Central
427,135
1,481,082
1,591,722
734,776
2,222,263
5.2%
17.9
19.2
8.9
Great Lakes
West Coast
26.8
Midwest/Mountains
Non-contiguous
Total U.S.
874,161
878,210
69,374
10.6
10.6
0.8
8,278,273
100.0%
Source: Boating Registration Statistics 1979, National
Marine Manufacturers Association (Marex);
Chicago, IL.
JRB Associates, Inc.
/
-------
The data in Figure 1.2 reveal that there are a substantial number of
boats in all areas of the country. However, there are noticable differences
among the regions and States in the number and concentration of pleasure
craft. The Great Lakes region has the largest number of registered boats and
it also has the greatest concentration of boats per 1000 residents as shown in
Table A.2 of Appendix A. The value of interpreting the concentration of boats
after adjusting for population is illustrated by comparing the boat registra-
tion data for Michigan and Minnesota. While the difference in the absolute
number of boat registrations in insignificant, 571,007 in Michigan compared to
563,850 in Minnesota, Minnesota has more than twice and many registered boats
per 100 residents (139 versus 62). Thus, one would expect to find participa-
tion in boating among the general public in Minnesota to be about twice as
common as it is among all the residents of Michigan.
This brief review of the boating industry and the number of boats in the
U.S. provides a basic understanding of the overall population potentially
affected by marine sanitation regulations. Later, in Section 2.4 of Chapter
2, the boat population statistics will be more closely examined in regard to
estimating the number of boats that must comply with Federal MSD regulations.
1.3.3 Overview of Marine Sanitation Technology
To make the forthcoming section concerning the development of MSD regula-
tions more understandable, it is necessary to discuss briefly the operating
characteristics of the three basic categories of marine sanitation devices.
These are identified as Types I, II, and III. The subsections below
distinguish the principal operational differences of the three basic types of
MSD's. Appendix B of this report offers a more detailed description of the
treatment technologies now employed. Section 2.3 in Chapter 2 discusses the
principal engineering and design problems presented by MSD's.
1.3.3.1 Type I Devices
A Type I device is defined as a flow-through device that produces an
effluent that meets a specific fecal coliform bacteria count (currently less
than 1000 per 100 ml) and contains no visible floating solids. This type of
device usually is constructed with a macerator to reduce solids to less than
"visible" size, and uses chemical additives to reduce fecal coliform count.
IRR Accrviatpc lnC.__
8
-------
Type I devices receive sanitary waste in a macerator (or mill) that
reduces the size of the solids. The mill is somewhat similar to a blender in
which turbulence and shear are induced by a high speed rotating blade to tear
apart solids and thoroughly blend the materials. Common practice is to drop a
sodium hypochlorite tablet or other disinfectant chemical into the device and
turn on the mill for a specific time period (up to 5 minutes). This results
in dispersion of the disinfectant as well as maceration of the solids.
The size requirements of this type of MSD are relatively modest. Each
batch of material to be macerated needs to be no larger than the flush volume
of the marine toilet, although some manufacturers have included holding tanks
after treatment for the equivalent of up to 30 flushes. This improves system
efficiency and allows operation in no-discharge waters. The extra weight
associated with Type I devices is relatively minor and depends primarily on
the volume of waste held prior to batch treatment and direct overboatd
discharge.
Power requirements for Type I MSD's are not great as shown in Table 2.2
in Chapter 2. However, the lack of power on the water can present problems.
Sailboats, for instance, operate their running lights off a small battery
pack. Even a small power requirement can deplete this power source if used
over an extended period of time without recharge. Powerboats frequently have
generators to recharge the battery pack, and therefore are not as susceptible
to power drain.
1.3.3.2 Type II Devices
Type II devices are defined as flow-through devices that produce an
effluent that meets a specific fecal coliform bacteria count (currently less
than 200 per 100 ml) and contains no more than 150 mg/1 total suspended
solids. Type II units are the most sophisticated of the three types of MSD's.
Various manufacturers have used different treatment technologies to
attain the degree of waste treatment required in Type II systems. This type
of device is usually designed to remove or break down solids from the waste
stream by bacterial action. In these systems, naturally occurring micro-
biological organisms break down the sewage; chemicals are used as dis-
infectants for fecal coliform reduction. A means of removing suspended solid
IRR Acwiatp<: Inc.
9
-------
material from the waste such as sedimentation or filtration is usually neces-
sary.
While Type II systems are feasible in larger vessels, they are not
considered a viable alternative for pleasure craft under 65 feet in length.
This is due to the generally larger size, weight, power consumption,
maintenance requirements, and initial capital expense of Type II systems as
compared to Type I or III systems. In addition, Type II systems usually
generate sludge from the treatment process and this sludge has to be properly
disposed of.
1.3.3.3 Type III Devices
Type III MSD's are defined as no-discharge devices. This type is
typically a holding tank that receives shipboard waste and retains it for
disposal onshore. The tank must be emptied periodically into a shoreside
pumpout facility or into waters that are not restricted to discharge of sewage
wastes. Type III MSD's also include incineration devices that reduce the
sewage discharge totally to ash and recirculating devices that treat the
liquid for reuse as the flushing medium.
The requirements of a Type III MSD are very simple and straightforward:
the system must provide for no discharge of sewage wastes from the vessel.
The method of complying with this requirement in Type III MSD's can be as
simple as a holding tank, which stores sewage wastes (usually with disinfec-
tants and deodorants added) until the tank can be pumped out at a shore-based
facility or in an unrestricted discharge zone; or as sophisticated as a total
recycle system, which treats the sewage wastes so effectively that the water
can be continually reused (most total recycle systems will require periodic
removal of waste buildup in the system and/or addition of new chemicals or
materials to maintain efficiency).
Most Type III MSD's are of the holding or storage tank variety. The
initial capital costs of installation of this system and subsequent
maintenance costs and requirements are the lowest of the three types of
MSD's. Power requirements, if any, are minimal. The holding tank must be
properly sized for the amount of wastes it will be required to hold, and the
sizing of the tank will be dependent on such factors as number of persons
using the vessel, availability of shore-based pumpout facilities and length of
IRR Associates, Inc.
10
-------
time between pumpouts, and frequency that the vessel operates in unrestricted
discharge zones.
Methane generation in holding tanks does not present a problem, but odors
can develop if the tanks are not properly designed and maintained. More
complex Type III MSD's, such as recycle systems, are usually suited only for
large vessels for the same reasons that were stated for Type II MSD's. A Type
I or Type II MSD must be supplemented by a Type III unit (holding tank) if it
is to be used in no-discharge waters. However, the current regulations do not
prohibit carrying only a Type I or II device (with no holding tank) if they
are secured when in a no-discharge area.
1.3.4 Legislative Background
Federal legislation dealing with various aspects of watercraft pollution
control has existed since the New York Harbor Act of 1888 and the Refuse Act
of 1899. Not until the early 1960's, however, was serious attention given to
the establishment of regulations prohibiting the discharge of untreated sewage
from all types of watercraft into the nation's waterways.
State and local officials took the first steps to control sewage dis-
charge from watercraft. Two solutions suggested were to temporarily retain
waste onboard for later discharge at a shoreside facility, or to treat the
effluent to an acceptable level of purity before discharge.
1.3.4.1 Initial MSD Regulations
The State of New Hampshire was among the first States to take steps to
ensure local quality of water by controlling the discharge of vessel wastes.
The State specified that flow-through waste processing devices (Type I
macerator-chlorinators) be installed onboard all boats used on its inland
lakes, specifically Lakes Sunapee and Winnipesaukee. Standards for size of
suspended solid particles and bacterial coliform count were set.
Additionally, the Lake George [NY] Association, working with the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, set a no-discharge (Type III
holding tank) standard for that body of water.
By the late 1960's, the controversy about these two types of systems
intensified. Advocates of macerator-chlorinators said:
IRR Associates, I
11
-------
• The macerator-chlorinator at least offers some treatment of boat waste
materials;
• Waste pumped from holding tanks often is returned, virtually
untreated, to the waterway anyway;
• There are no holding tank pumpout stations in most areas;
• Dealers report great resistance to voluntary installation of holding
tank pumpout stations; and
• There are no legislative plans to require, or provide, any holding
tank pumpout stations.
Conversely, the advocates of holding tanks felt:
• A tank retains all materials that could harm a waterway;
• There are no fail-safe provisions effectively installed on any
macerator-chlorinator;
• Particulate size from the macerator-chlorinator is too large to be of
anti-pollution value; and
• No evidence has been given that macerator-chlorinators have any effect
on viruses.
Within a short time other States began to adopt either holding or treat-
ment requirements. For the most part, the two methods were mutually exclu-
sive; treatment devices that had no holding capabilities whatsoever could not
be used in no-discharge areas; and, pumpout facilities were not available to
holding tank users in waters where treatment systems were used. In some cases
vessels equipped with one system could not legally cross from one side of a
river a few hundred feet to the other side.
As noted earlier in the chapter, the concern about water pollution that
was forcefully expressed in the 1960's naturally drew attention to the problem
of wastes discharged from watercraft. This concern, coupled with a desire to
remove the barriers to free passage set up by conflicting State marine sanita-
tion laws, provided the impetus for Federal involvement in marine sanitation
regulation. In 1967, the problem of wastes eminating from the nation's
commercial and recreational vessels was examined in a report to Congress
JRB Associates, Inc.
12
-------
entitled, "Wastes from Watercraft." This report from the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration said:
As in other spheres of American life, the achievement of
affluence and prosperity has not been without expense to the
quality of our natural environment. This report to the Congress
will show that the threat to our navigable waters through pollution
from vessels of all descriptions is formidable, and, above all,
needless. The report will also show that the means to stop this
degradation and to begin enhancing this resource over the total
range of beneficial public uses, are either in hand or can be
secured through the additional legislative and other measures which
are recommended [in this report].
The report argued that it made "little sense" to clean up municipal and
industrial wastewater without also controlling waste discharge from water-
craft, especially because areas of heavy vessel traffic are usually located in
densely populated areas.
The report stressed that the growth in the number of recreational vessels
made pleasure boats a growing source of the pollution load from all water-
craf t:
The problem of pollution from watercraft is both widespread
and varied. In a sense, it is also a new problem. It is new
because watercraft — particularly recreational boats — have
increased to such numbers that their once negligible wastes are
becoming a significant factor in the overall pollution picture.
And it is new because it has been caught up in the mounting public
concern about all forms of pollution.
The problem is widespread because vessels and boats frequent
all navigable water areas of the Nation and may trigger local
pollution at any point along their path. Pleasurecraft congre-
gating for weekend fun may suddenly impose a load of untreated
wastes, equivalent to those of a small city or town, on the waters
they use.
To respond to the vessel pollution problem, a program of Federal legislation
covering both commercial and recreational vessels was outlined in the report.
The recommendations of this report were the foundation of Section 13 of
the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970. Section 13 directed the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration of the Department of the Interior
(which less than six months later became the Environmental Protection Agency)
to develop and promulgate standards of performance for MSD's that would
prevent discharge of raw or improperly treated sewage from vessels equipped
with toilets into the waters of the United States.
JRB Associates, Inc.
13
-------
The law prohibited States 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 requirements. However, States were
given the opportunity to apply to the EPA Administrator for issuance of a
regulation completely prohibiting any discharges into certain State waters.
EPA proposed regulations on May 12, 1971 prohibiting discharges of sewage
from vessels with installed toilets which contain visible floating, or settle-
able, 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 tech-
nology. 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 regula-
tions, and five public meetings were held. During the comment period, many
groups stated their opposition to the proposed MSD standards, particularly the
proposal to require holding tanks for certain smaller vessels. The U.S. Coast
Guard, which was given enforcement responsibility under provisions of the
Water Quality Improvement Act, also opposed the proposed regulations because
detection of violations of the law would be extremely difficult, and Coast
Guard manpower was simply not available to fully enforce the law.
Despite this opposition, EPA abandoned the concept of standards based
upon effluent limitations and instead promulgated Federal standards of perfor-
mance for marine sanitation devices on June 23, 1972, that provided for no
overboard discharge of sewage into the navigable waters of the United States
from vessels with installed toilets with certain limited exceptions. Existing
vessels equipped with Type 1's within three years from the date of promulga-
tion of Coast Guard implementing regulations were not required to comply with
the no-discharge requirements as long as the Type I remained operable. In
essence, EPA's standard called for zero discharge of treated or untreated
wastes with an "incentive" clause to encourage existing vessels to install
Type I MSD's before the effective date of the standards.
JRB Associates, lnc.__
14
-------
1.3.4.2 The Current MSD Regulation Program
In 1972, Congress amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA)
and Included the present requirements for MSB's. Section 13 of the Water
Quality Improvement Act was brought forward with certain amendments into the
FWPCA as section 312. Section 312(b)(1) directed EPA to promulgate standards
of performance for MSD's which were to take effect or new vessels two years
from the date of promulgation and for existing vessels five years from the
date of promulgation. The Coast Guard was directed to promulgate regulations
governing the design, construction, and installation and operation of MSD's
and was required to enforce EPA's standards of performance.
In addition, the 1972 amendments added two new subparts to Section 312 of
the FWPCA under which EPA and the States could prohibit the discharge of
vessel sewage into certain specified waters. Section 312(f)(3) provides that
if any State determines that the protection and enhancement of the quality of
some or all of its waters requires greater environmental protection, such
State may completely prohibit the discharge from all vessels of any sewage,
whether treated or not, into such waters, if the Administrator of EPA deter-
mines that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal of sewage
from all vessels are reasonably available. 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, one was denied on procedural grounds, one was
denied on technical grounds, and one was pending.
Section 312(f)(4) states that if the Administrator determines upon appli-
cation 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. EPA has received three petitions under Section 312(f)(4). Of
the three, one has been approved, and two were denied on procedural grounds.
The Coast Guard published final regulations for the design and construc-
tion of MSD's on January 30, 1975. The regulations (presented in full in
Appendix D) covered the testing procedures and these important definitions
were made:
• Through-hull fittings were allowed and the limits of the regulations
were established at three miles (the limit of the territorial
sea). These two factors made it possible for off-shore vessels to
dump untreated waste at sea.
'RR Associates, Inc.
15
-------
• Portable devices were not included in the regulations (eliminating
the need for their testing) because only installed toilets are
covered by the legislation.
Under the final Coast Guard regulations, vessels can be categorized according
to the type of system they must install and when it must be operational. The
equipment appropriate for a vessel would depend on its intended use, its age
and the space available for an MSD.
Following passage of the 1972 FWPCA Amendments, EPA reconsidered its
previously promulgated MSD standards of performance. EPA proposed new
standards on October 10, 1975, and after consideration of additional comments,
revised its final standards of performance for marine sanitation devices on
January 29, 1976. EPA's new standards (presented in full in Appendix D)
provided that existing vessels equipped with a Type I device before January
30, 1978 could retain that device for its operable life. All existing vessels
that were not equipped with Type I's by January 30, 1978, were required to
install an operable Type II by January 30, 1980. Vessels that were under
construction before January 31, 1980 and which were equipped with a Type I
device by January 31, 1980, could retain that device for its operable life.
All other new vessels had to install Type II's. Waters where U.S. Coast
Guard-certified MSD's may be used include coastal waters and estuaries, the
Great Lakes and interconnecting waterways, freshwater lakes and impoundments
accessible through locks, and other flowing waters that are navigable inter-
state by vessels with installed toilets. The standards do not apply to
vessels that are not equipped with installed toilets.
In formulating the new standards, EPA also took into account the fact
that certain water bodies, such as those with relatively long detention
periods that 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 requirements were
required to install Type III devices designed to prevent any discharge by
January 30, 1980; new vessels in these waters were required to be equipped by
'RR Associates, Inc.
16
-------
January 30, 1980. However, even in no-discharge areas, vessels equipped with
Type I's as of the date of promulgation of the standards were permitted to
retain the devices for the life of the device.
Some boaters believed that EPA would not retain the Type II MSD dead-
line. When it became evident toward 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 (presented
in full in Appendix D), 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. 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 MSD's
available for small vessels. As a result, the Coast Guard issued a second
waiver on July 10, 1978 (presented in full in Appendix D), also with the
concurrance of EPA, which stated that the Type II MSD requirement 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 existing vessels 65
feet in length or less were only required to install Type I MSD's by January
30, 1980. The current timetable, taking account of the provisions of the
waivers, is presented in Figure 1.3.
17
JRB Associates, Inc
-------
FICURE 1.3
COMPLIANCE DEADLINES FOR INSTALLATION OF
MDS's ABOARD WATERCRAFT
EFFECTIVE DATE
TYPE OF VESSEL TYPE OF WATER OF STANDARDS REQUIRED
New Vessels
-Retention Areas January 30, 1977 TYPE III
-Discharge Areas January 30, 1977 TYPE I
OR TYPE III
oo
ALT, BOATS
WTTH
INSTALLED
TOILETS
•Retention Areas
January 30 , 1980
TYPE III
Existing Vessels-
¦Discharge Areas
January 30, 1980
¦ TYPE 1
OR TYPE
III
-------
CHAPTER 2
SECONDARY DATA - TECHNICAL DISCUSSION OF
MARINE SANITATION DEVICES (MSD's)
19
JRB Associates. Inc.
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
IRR Associates, Inc.
20
-------
2. SECONDARY DATA - TECHNICAL DISCUSSION OF
MARINE SANITATION DEVICES (MSD's)
This chapter addresses the specific technical issues relative to the use
of MSD's aboard recreational watercraft. Scientific and engineering data
bases were reviewed to discover literature relative to the environmental
effects of MSD's, engineering evaluations of MSD's, and a cost analysis of
the implementation of MSD's. This chapter is divided into five sections
discussing:
• research strategy;
• scientific issues;
• engineering analysis;
• cost analysis; and
• popular press reporting of the issues.
2.1 RESEARCH STRATEGY
The research strategy developed for this study was two-part, employing a
computer search of bibliograhic data bases followed by library search
activities. The objective of the search was to review all applicable data for
the last 10 to 15 years, concentrating on the effects of sewage disposal from
recreational vessels and the engineering and cost issues relative to mandatory
I use of MSD's.
2.1.1 Computer Search
Three computerized information systems were assessed for data on the
scientific issues relative to MSD's. These were the Lockheed Information
System, the SPC, system, and the NIH Medlar system. In the Lockheed system,
13 data bases were searched covering more than 10,000 publications, which
yielded 50 specific citations relative to the technical issues of MSD's.
The SPC data base was judged to be redundant to the Lockheed system and,
therefore, was not searched completely. The NIH Medlar system yielded
one relevant citation on disease and pathogens resulting from recreational
vessel discharge.
21
JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
Figure 2.1 shows the computer search strategy used to query the Lockheed
Information System. This search selected citations containing one or more
of the terms in Statements 1, 2, or 7, or containing terms in both Statements
3 and 4 .
Each citation was followed by a detailed abstract, highlighting the
contents of the reference. By reviewing each abstract, a decision was made
regarding the applicability of the reference to issues of concern. The
output from the computer search led directly into the library search and
the investigation of other information sources.
2.1.2 Library Search and Other Information Retrieval
The library search was first directed at obtaining and reviewing those
articles selected from the computer search. Libraries that were used in
this data-gathering effort were the EPA Headquarters Library and the Library
of Congress. In addition, once an article was obtained, a review of the
bibliography was done immediately to identify additional references appli-
cable for the technical review. At the Library of Congress, a manual search
of their holdings was performed in an attempt to exhaust all sources of
information pertaining to MSD's, the effects of disinfectant chemicals on
the aquatic environment and reports on disease from recreational watercraft
discharge.
The search of computerized data bases and technical libraries indi-
cated that technical literature directly applicable to recreational water-
craft is relatively scarce. Hie limitations of the research reported in
the literature will be discussed in the subsequent sections of this chapter.
The search for scientific and technical information in secondary sources
was paralleled by an effort to contact individuals by telephone in the
academic community and in government agencies who were thought to be active in
research related to marine sanitation devices. Several relevant reports were
identified through these direct inquiries. The discussions also served to
provide deeper insights into methods used to establish a connection between
the discharge of vessel wastes and contamination of the aquatic environment.
-------
FIGURE 2.1
COMPUTER SEARCH STRATEGY
ro
i_o
? . F.XS 4SC7 0 MARINE SANITATION ACT
0 MARINE SANITATION DEVICES
1 0 MARINE SANITATION ACT OR MARINE SANITATION DEVICES
5 MS D
0 M(W)S(W)D
7 MARINE(W)SANITATION
2 9 MSD OR M(SW)S(W)D OR MARINE(W)SANITATION
4 WATERCRAET
71 VESSEL?
9 PLEASURE (W) BOAT?
0 PLEASIJRE(W) C RAFl'
3 84 WATERCRAET OR VESSEL? OR PLEASURE(W)BOAT? OR PLEASURE (W)CRAFT
T
12 7 SEWAGE
4 3 SANITATION
29 SANITARY
59 TOLLET
368 WASTE(W)DISPOSAL
4 585 SEWAGE OR SANITATION OR SANITARY OR TOTLET OR WASTE(W)DISPOSAL
AL
5 (Lino Deleted)
6 0 3 AND 4
0 MARINE(W)FECAL(W)COL?L FORM
0 D1SEASE(W)TRANSMISSION(F)MAR INF
7 0 MARINE(W) FECAL(W)COL?I FORM OR DTSEASE(W)TRANSMISSTON(F)MARINE
E
8 9 1 OR 2 OR 6 OR 7
-------
2.2 SCIENTIFIC ISSUES
This section addresses environmental effects related to three major
problems:
• sewage discharge to the aquatic environment;
• sewage-borne pathogens in the aquatic environment; and
• disinfectant chemicals discharged to the aquatic environment.
Each of these areas is discussed in terms of its general effects and
specifically how each issue relates to recreational watercraft.
2.2.1 Sewage Discharge to the Aquatic Environment
Studies of the effects of sewage discharge on the aquatic environment
from municipal sanitary sewers have been comprehensive and voluminous. These
studies are not directly applicable to sewage discharge from watercraft,
because wastes from municipal sanitary systems are more dilute and are in
vastly greater quantities than those from watercraft. Typical concentration
of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) in wastewater from watercraft is between
1700 - 3500 mg/1, while typical sanitary wastewater ranges from 110 to 400 mg/1
48
for raw sewage and five to 100 mg/1 for treated sewage. Raw municipal sewage
has a lower strength because people on land use more water for sanitary
purposes than do people on boats. Tn addition, the proportion of gray water
(defined as water from baths, showers, kitchens, etc.) is greater in municipal
sewage, and municipal collection systems are subject to inflow and
infiltration of relatively unpolluted stormwater. While sewage from water-
craft is more concentrated, the total volume of contaminated waste is snail in
comparison with sewage loads from stationary sources. In addition, boats are
mobile sources and disperse their pollutant loads over a wide area. Municipal
sanitary sewer wastes may he discharged at a steady rate over a long period of
time, whereas watercraft wastes are frequently discharged intensively for
short time periods, such as in a marina over a weekend.
The introduction of human wastes into a body of water increases the
concentration of oxygen-demanding substances, which deplete the amount of
oxygen available to aquatic species. In addition, nutrients in the sewage may
increase the rate of eutrophication and could eventually result in a highly
eutrophic body of water that is considered undesirable for human use or activity.
JRB Associates, inr
24
-------
Human wastes contain a wide variety of bacteria, viruses, fungi and
worms, some of which are pathogenic. Although most pathogens cannot grow in
the environment and eventually die off, some, depending on the type of water
and the prevailing condition, can survive long enough to constitute a health
hazard. Those pathogens that form spores in their reproductive cycle can
remain virulent for long periods of time; hence, sewage-contaminated lakes,
rivers, and coastal regions may be a dangerous source of disease organisms.
2.2.1.1 Effects of Sewage from Recreational Watercraft
The effects of sewage discharge on the aquatic environment have been
well documented in the literature. However, there is limited research
that assesses the direct effects of sewage discharge from recreational water-
craft on the incidence of waterborne disease and the degradation of the aquatic
environment. That is, no studies were found that measured oxygen depletion,
nutrient levels, or disease incidence, and correlated these results with the
discharge of sewage from recreational watercraft. There are, hoveve^,
numerous studies showing the effects of boats on increased levels of enteric
bacteria, which can be considered as an indirect measure of the potential for
waterborne disease (see below). Watercraft clustering in marinas or in coves
or bays for several days have been shown to have noticable short-term effects
on the number of enteric bacteria in the aquatic environment.
2.2.2 Microbial Contamination
The release of microorganisms to the aquatic environment has become a
crucial issue in the discussion of the implementation of MSD's for recrea-
tional watercraft. Many advocates of overboard discharge contend that the
scientific literature has not been conclusive in demonstrating that overboard
discharge results in contamination by sewage-borne microorganisms and that
there are subsequent health effects. As this section will show, however, there
have been several studies in which the contribution of boats to increased
microbial contamination is well-documented.
25
_ JRB Associates, lnc.__
-------
2.2.2.1 General Effects of Pathogens on Aquatic Environmental Quality
The most common pathogenic organisms found in domestic sewage are listed
in Table 2.1. Many of these organisms die off rapidly when discharged into
surface waters. However, various pathogens will survive if the conditions are
right. The bacterial diseases and causative organisms that are known to be
transmitted by contaminated water are typhoid fever (Salmonella typhosa),
cholera (Vibrio cholerae), and bacterial dysentery (Shigella dysenterlae).
The spores of pathogenic Clostridia, particularly of those causing gas gangrene
such as CI. perfrlngeus, CI. novyi, and CI. septlcum, can be found in sewage-
loaded waters. They may remain alive in the sediments for years and may even
4
become enriched there.
Pathogenic viruses are of particular concern with respect to sewage
contaminated waters. The question as to whether chlorine and other disinfec-
tants effectively inactivate viruses at commonly used dosages has not been
definitively answered. From the evidence available on the viricidal effec-
tiveness of the chlorination process, it appears that chlorination beyond the
breakpoint to obtain free chlorine will be required to kill many viruses of
4
concern.
The viral diseases known to be transmitted by water are poliomyelitis,
certain kinds of hepatitis, and intestinal infections (Coxsackie and Echo
viruses). Infections from hepatitis viruses as well as Salmonella bacteria
can also be contracted by ingesting oysters and other shellfish obtained from
9
water contaminated by human wastes.
The survival of pathogenic organisms in aquatic systems varies depending
on the type of water and prevailing conditions. Temperature, salinity,
tubidity (light penetration), availability of nutrients, grazing by zooplank-
ton, and BOD concentration all appear to affect the survival of pathogenic
organisms, particularly in seawater. Above 10 mg/1 initial BOD, seawater
appears not to be toxic to microorganisms and the maximum bacterial density
/.
becomes dependent on the initial BOD concentration. Studies by Stewart
al~ (1980) show that many of these pathogens will survive in marine
sediments, particularly in areas of overlying waters polluted with sewage. ^
The pathogens that have primarily been identified are Salmonella and Shigella. .
IRR Associates, lr"~
26
-------
TABLE 2.1
Pathogenic organisms commonly found in wastewater
Ornamwr.
Disease
Im.spp. E-'Ucobins spp. Nematode worms
s an'hrjcis
spp.
F.>:'ii»U!cr>a histol\t;ca
Aiitnrax
Brucellosis. Malta fe\er
in man Contagions
abortion in sheep, coals
and caule
Dvsenterv
Remarks
Danger to rr.an from
wastewater effluents and
dried sludge used as fertilizer
Found m wastewater Spores
are resstan: to treatment
Normally transmitted b\
iniected milk or b> contact.
Wastewater is also
suspected
Spread r>\ coniam:nated
waters and r>iTCulo±l$
Tuberculosis
S<,t>>ii)nc!!a paratyphi
fv;w':;
Hit spp
Spp.
spp.
7"hi nta >pp.
1 d:n.\r ;/<•
Virus
Paratyphoid fever
Typhoid fe-.e-
Food poisoning
Schistosomiasis
Bacillary dvsenterv
Tapeworm1;
Cholera
Poliomveluis. hepatitis
Isolated Irom wastewater and
polluted stream*.
Wastewater is a possible
mode of transmission Care
must be taken with
wastewater and sludge from
sanatorium*
Common .n wastewater and
effluent in time? of
epidemics
Common in wastewater and
etlluents in times of
epidemics
Common in wastewater and
diluents
Prohahh killed bv efficient
wastewater lierumem
Polluted waters are main
source of infection
llggs verv resistant, present in
wastewater sludge and
wastewater etlluenis Danger
to cattle on land irrigated or
land manured with sludge
Transmitted bv wastewater
and polluted waters
Exact mode of transmission
not set known Found in
effluents from biological
wastew ate r-treat men I plants
Source: Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering, 2nd Edition, New York,
NY, 1979, p. 107.
27
JRB Associates, Inc.—
-------
Pathogenic organisms generally have a short lifetime in the environ-
ment. Therefore, some other indicator of contamination must be used.
Coliform bacteria, because of their universal presence in the human intestinal
tract and because they are easily identified and counted, are commonly used as
an index of fecal contamination. However, coliform bacteria can originate
from the intestintes of other animals, and thus the presence of fecal
coliforms cannot be completely relied upon as an indicator of contamination by
human wastes.
It should be noted that some recent studies have indicated that the fecal
coliform assay is not a good indicator of the degree of recent fecal pollu-
4
tion, particularly in seawater. Rather, the suggestion has been given that
fecal streptococci be used as an indication of fecal pollution. While this
argument may be correct, the fact remains that most studies have been
performed by using the fecal coliform assay as an indicator of contamination
by sewage.
2.2.2.2 The Contribution of Recreational Watercraft in Fecal Coliform Assays
20
Kelch and Lee (1978) developed a predictive model for coliform in
estuarine environments. The parameters used in the model were environmental
factors (temperature, precipitation, river flow, and tide information),
bacteriological data, antibiotic resistance factors for the bacteria that were
isolated, and recreational use data. In the situations tested thus far, the
model clearly related bacterial increase with recreational activity. In
addition, other studies have been performed on bacteriological contamination
from small boat wastes; some studies have been less than conclusive, while
other have clearly demonstrated coliform increases. Some of these studies are
highlighted below:
3 2
• Seabloom (1969) notes that coliform counts will naturally decrease
during summer months versus winter months because of their dependence
on temperature. This decrease has been a predictable percentage of
the total coliform count. However, in his study of two freshwater
bays that are used for recreational boating during the summer, the
author noticed that the decrease in coliform counts was considerably
less than anticipated, leading him to conclude that boating activity
has affected the total coliform concentration in the waters.
IRR Associates, lr"~
28
-------
2 i
• Kidd (1975) reported an increase of both fecal streptococci and
fecal coliform in man-impacted areas of Lake Powell. These finds
occurred during the summer months during increased human activity.
23
• Mack et al. (1971) in a study of a small Michigan lake, compared the
water of a marina prior to use and just after use on a major boating
weekend. Significant increases of fecal coliform were found in the
marina slips that were used most often. The study showed temperature
and wave action had a great influence on the survival ability of the
coliforms.
• The Rhode Island Water Quality Plan (1978)^ reported many cases of
increase of total and fecal coliform counts in shellfish beds that lay
below major boating areas. For instance, after Labor Day weekend,
increases that were directly proportional to the boating population
were noted both in the water column and in the shellfish.
2
• Barbaro et al. (1969) sampled marina and non-marina waters during the
summer boating season on a Mississippi reservoir. Marina waters were
found to contain significantly higher fecal coliform and fecal
streptococci counts than non-marina waters.
• Faust (1979)^ cond ucted a limited study of bacterial pollution from
recreational watercraft in a Chesapeake Bay inlet. Fecal coliform
data were taken over a weekend in which there was no runoff from other
sources of contamination. The concentration of fecal coliforms was
observed to rise during the weekend in direct relationship to the
number of pleasure boats counted and fall again on Monday after the
boating population had left the area.
• The Environmental Health Administration of the State of Maryland
Department of Health and^ental Hygiene performed a two year
comparative study (1979) of sewage contamination in six marinas in
Kent Island Narrows, Maryland. In this study bacterial assays for
fecal coliform were carried out on samples taken in marinas and
compared with samples from areas that would not be contaminated by
sewage from pleasure boats. Based on a statistical analysis of the
two years of data it was concluded that the fecal coliform
concentration was significantly higher in marinas that were populated
by recreational watercraft than the control areas. The marinas in the
Kent Island Narrows were therefore identified as "significant
contributors toward bacterial loading in surface waters."
IRR Associates. Inc.__
29
-------
The above literature is not totally conclusive regarding the extent of
the relationship between pleasure boats and microbial concentration in
water. However, because several of the studies support one another, and
because increased discharge of sewage must result in increased bacterial
contamination, it may be said that a direct relationship exists between
pleasure boats and bacterial counts.
However, the data do not indicate an increased incidence of disease.
Some studies may have yielded conflicting results because of the many
variables that influence coliform survival. But it may be concluded that
there is an increase in pathogens in underlying waters due to recreational
watercraft usage.
2.2.3 Disinfectant Chemicals in the Aquatic Environment
Like nearly all shorebound sewage treatment systems, Type I marine sani-
tation devices employ the use of disinfectant chemicals (chlorine or formalde-
hyde solutions) in their treatment process. These chemicals are mixed with
the waste; some of the chemical is consumed by the treatment process and the
residual is then discharged into the aquatic environment with the treated
waste. The main purpose is to reduce the amount of virulent pathogens dis-
charged into waterways. Disinfectants, especially chlorine, may also be used
to control odors. However, there is a concern that the effects of the disin-
1 12
fectant chemicals on the aquatic environment could be detrimental. ' This
section addresses the general issues pertaining to the effects of disinfectant
chemicals and the specific effects from recreational watercraft. Much data is
available in the scientific literature on the effects of chlorination;
however, there is little information on the effects of other disinfectant
compounds, or the direct effects from recreational watercraft.
2.2.3.1 General Discussion on the Effects of Disinfectant Chemicals
Considerable work has been done on the effects of disinfectants on
aquatic environment. Many of these studies have been related to power plant
cooling water effluent where disinfectants (biocides) are commonly used as
18
anti-fouling agents. Some studies have been done with wastewater discharge
from wastewater treatment facilities; these studies are the focus of this
'HR Associates, lnf~
30
-------
analysis. The literature has largely focused on the effects of chlorine
compounds.
In general, the toxicity of chlorine compounds is a function of concen-
tration, contact time, and chemical form. These relationships are used fre-
quently in the design of chlorination systems for treatment of water and
wastewater. Figure 2.2 shows the relationship between time and concentration
that will produce satisfactory kill rates for several pathogens and bacteria.
Figure 2.3 indicates how these relationships are a function of the chemical
form of the chlorine residual.
Studies on chlorine residuals in the aquatic environment have established
similar curves for some macroscopic species and have extended these curves to
considerably lower levels. In fact, it has been shown that threshold exposures
exist that do not result in death in aquatic species. There are, however,
observable chronic effects below these threshold values. Such effects may
include avoidance of contaminated areas by certain species, interference with
food or mate-locating mechanisms, and decreased reproduction rates. Figure 2.4
shows generalized curves that describe the acute and chronic effects of
chlorine residuals to many aquatic species in fresh and marine environments.
Other toxicological studies reviewed are:
16
• Galtsoff (1945) reported that oysters are sensitive to free
chlorine in sea water at concentrations as low as 0.01 ppm.
The oysters were found to be affected in their abductor muscles
and in their ability to operate their pumping mechanism properly;
37
• Zillich (1972) reported that chloramines were more toxic than
free chlorine to warm water fish. Adult fish were killed at
0.4 mg/1, while 0.05 mg/1 will kill trout fry;
35
• Stone, et al. (1973) notes in his study of phvtoplankton and
aufwuchs (marsh periphvton) that toxic responses occurred at 0.06 mg/1
in chlorinated effluents, with 50% of the phvtoplankton and 30% of
the aufwuchs; and
• Davis, et al. (1977)"'""'" reported on the decrease of fish species in
certain parts of the Patuxent River where chlorinated sewage
effluent occurred. He noted that, in addition to killing certain
fish species, it also prevented migration of other species upstream.
These studies are representative examples of chlorine toxicity and depict the
problems associated with chlorine.
JRB Associates, lnc.___
31
-------
FIGURE 2.2
CONCENTRATION OF CHLORINE AS HOC1 REQUIRED FOR 99 PERCENT KILL OF E_. COL I
AND THREE ENTERIC VIRUSES AT 0 TO 6°C
1 0
0 1
001
0 1
1
10
40
Contnct ; mr' for 99 oercent ki I m n
Source: Bery, G., "The Virus Hazard in Water Supplies." Reported in:
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
New York, NY, 1979, p. 302
FIGURE 2.3
COMPARISON OF THE GERMICIDAL EFFICIENCY OF HYPOCHLOROUS ACID, HYPOCHLORITE
ION, AND MONOCHLORAMINE FOR 99 PERCENT DESTRUCTION OF E. COLI AT 2 TO 6°C
iYo~>ochloroin ne
Hypochlorite ion
0>
o
u
_4i
o
Hypochlorous acid
0 01
0001
10
100
1000
99 percent destruction of t. cob at 2 :o 6: C
Source: White, G.C., Handbook of Chlorination. Reported in: Metcalf & Eddy,
Inc., Wastewater Engineering, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY,
1979, p. 300.
3
Note: mg/L = g/ra
JRB Associates, Inc.——
32
-------
FIGURE 2.4
ACUTE AND CHRONIC TOXICITY THRESHOLD FOR MARINE AND FRESHWATER ORGANISMS
EXPOSED TO CHLORINE
MARINE CHRONIC TOXICITY THRESHOLD
FRESHWATER CHRONIC TOXICITY THRESHOLD
10 2 5 10
EXPOSURE(MIN)
Source: Mattice, J.S., and Zittel, H.E., "Site Specific Evaluation of Power
Plant Chlorination," Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 48,
1976, pp. 2284-2302.
-------
Other factors that must be considered in an examination of the effects of
chlorination are:
• The toxicity of chlorine in water depends on the amount of unconsumed
chlorine residual remaining in solution, and not the amount of chlorine
added (Brungs , 1973).
• The toxicity of residual chlorine depends on the relative proportions
of free chlorine and chloramines of which it is composed. This ratio
also depends on the amount of ammonia in the water, pH, temperature
and length of time of the reaction.
The variables all play a role in understanding why incidences of aquatic
37
toxicity are not reported. Zillich indicates that residual chlorine is not
toxic for short periods of time, that if a fish is exposed it will attempt
to travel out of the contaminated area and avoid the chlorination. He also
states that fish are known to avoid toxic materials at concentrations well
below those required to show toxic symptoms.
Another issue that has been raised recently in the literature is the
formation of chlorinated organic compounds following the discharge of chlorinated
wastewater into both saline and freshwater receiving bodies. Figure 2.5 is a
model of how this process is thought to occur.
FIGURE 2.5
DEGRADATION PROCESS FOR CHLORINE IN SALINE WATER
H0G.,0Cl*. NkOCi.
NHClj,
N'fcj. BoO". HB*0
HAL(yiJN*T£3 >CAN|C
Cr-WST | :uf NTS
Cl\ Ba"
Source: Modified from Block, R.M., and Helz, G.R., "Biological and Chemical
Implications of Chlorine in Estuarine and Marine Systems." Reported in:
Davis, W.P., and Middaugh, D.P., "Impact of Chlorination Processes on Marine
Ecosystems," Conference on Estuarine Pollution Control, 1977.
34
¦JRB Associates, Inc.'
-------
In Figure 2.5 the reaction between I and II is the result of chlorine
decay from a diatomic gas. The products formed from II to III are a function
of physical and chemical parameters of the water (pH, ammonia, bromine, temp-
erature). Level IV includes the halogenated organics that could be formed by
II or III species including chloramines, bromines, and hypobromite. This
reaction sequence only occurs in waters rich in organic compounds.
Formaldehyde is another disinfection agent in common use in MSD's. The
disinfecting power of formaldehyde comes from its ability to react with
proteins by alkylation of certain active groups. This effectively denatures
19
the protein by altering its chemical structure. This process is concentra-
tion dependent. Laboratory formaldehyde solutions range from 37-40% and are
known as formalin solutions. However, disinfecting solutions are effective at
only a few percent. In concentrations of a few ppm in aquatic environments,
formaldehyde has been shown to display no toxic effects. This formaldehyde
48
was used as a disinfectant in boat toilets.
Formaldehyde breaks down rapidly by oxidation to formic acid. In a
reducing environment, methyl alcohol is formed (also biodegradable).
Ultimately, these compounds break down to CC^ and water vapor. Furthermore,
formaldehyde is photo-sensitive, facilitating degradation in surface waters.
In the relatively oxidative environment of fully aerated water, physical and
biological processes will cause formaldehyde to break down by the formic acid
route. However, the presence of sewage will consume oxygen, producing a more
chemically reducing environment in which both physical and biological
processes will favor the alcohol route. Sewage will also increase suspended
solids, which will slow the photo-degradation process.
Formaldehyde is considered a toxic substance, and may be carcinogenic in
rats by inhalation of high vapor concentrations. Degradation rates for
formaldehyde in the environment are not generally known. However, it is
completely miscible in water and readily degradable. EPA has estimated that
because of the degradability, the potential for bioaccumulation of
52
formaldehyde is low, as is the potential for contamination of sediments.
Formaldehyde's decomposition products are quickly converted to non-toxic
substances through oxidation, evaporation, biodegradation and
photodegradation. Because formaldehyde is discharged in small amounts from
the MSD's that employ it as a disinfectant, and because of its very low
IRR Associates, Inc.
35
-------
persistence in the aquatic environment, the environmental and human health
126
hazard due to formaldehyde is judged to be negligible.
Zinc salts are frequently used as bacteriostatic agents in Type III
recirculating systems. Zinc has been reported to be lethal in fish in ranges
from 0.1 to 1.0 mg/1; this toxicity is due to its forming of insoluble
compounds on the gills. Zinc sulfate has also been found to be lethal to many
aquatic plants. Zinc is a metal that will bioaccumulate. However, zinc is
generally only used in Type III systems that should not be discharged
overboard, except beyond the three-mile limit.
2.2.3.2 Effect of Disinfectant Discharge from Watercraft
No studies have been found in the scientific literature that discuss the
effects of disinfectant discharge via Type I MSD's into the environment.
Having looked at the aquatic toxicities of the two main chemicals used, there
is little reason to believe that the effects of these chemicals would vary
when these chemicals are used in an MSD. The effects from disinfection are
not anticipated to be reduced in the MSD system.
Of the two major disinfectant chemicals used in Type I MSD's — chlorine
and formaldehyde — only chlorine has been shown to be toxic in the aquatic
environment. A direct link between MSD disinfectants and effects on the
environment has not been documented.
2.3 ENGINEERING STATE OF THE ART
The literature retrieved consists of discussions of recreational vessel
MSD's by system types rather than unit-by-unit analysis. This section reviews
the general physical considerations that bear upon the selection, installa-
tion, and operation of MSD's by recreational vessel owners. Table 2.2 lists
capacity, power demand, and chemical requirements of some currently certified
equipment. Appendix B presents a section from a U.S. Coast Guard report that
explains the operation of the three types of MSD's.
2.3.1 Physical Constraints on MSD's
The physical limitations of recreational watercraft impose constraints on
the design, installation, and operation of marine sanitation devices, and must
36
JRB Associates, ln<~
-------
TABLE 2.2
1ERTIFIEC MARINE SANITATION DEVICES SUITABLE FOR USE ON SMALL VESSELS
The MSD's listed are the ones that nay be labeled under the regulations,
but tney should net be considered the only ones
approved by the Coast Guard.
Chettical
Current
Manufacturer
Ko de 1
Type
Capacity
Charge
Draw (12v)
Marland Envircrment al Sys.
Sani-bead
22 7 N. Main Street
conversion
III
50 flushes
deodorant
—
Walworth, WI. 53184
module
Danf orth
D-1000EP
I
unlimited
chlorine-
1.4C5
500 Riverside Industrial
D-1300RP
I
unlimited
base tablets
amn-hrs
Parkwav
per flush
Portland, ME 04103
Firestone Coated Fabrics
Flex-N-fit
III
15 gals
deodorant
Cotrpanv
t arks
III
30 gals
de odorant
—
Box 887
III
40 gals
deodorant
—
Magnolia, AF. 71753
III
100 gals
deodorant
--
45 amps
Ga 11 e v Ma i d
Delt a Marine
I
330 gals/dav
chlorine
10 sec.
Marine Products, Inc.
Central Svs.
pellets
flush
Box 10417
Delta Marine
I
1-4 people
chlorine
45 amps
Riviera Beach, FL 33404
Indiv. Sys.
pellets
per flush
Kuaphrev Marine
Sevags Systems, Inc.
Mcdel 10
II
1-5 people
chlorine
10 anos
Box 341
pellets
per flush
Del Mar, CA 92014
Mansfielc Sanitary, Lnc.
7DX-E
I
unlimi ted
Formalir
8 anps
201 Wavne Street
solut ion
per 25-40
Big Prairie, On 4^011
Tua-::
I
Ulll i'JJi lOu
Fo rbiai in
f IuS.icS
so.ution
j
911-M2 6
III
9 gals
deodorant
—
Series 4000
III
15 gals rigid
decccrant
Holding Tank?
III
16 gals rigic
deodorant
III
20 gals rigid
deodorant
III
30 gals rigid
deodorant
III
40 gals naid
deodorant
III
55 gals rigid
deodorant
[~When used in
holding tank or TDX.
*Vacu-Flush
800 Series
III
unliraited
2-6 amps
per flush
Mlcrophor, Inc.
P. C. Box 490
Willits, CA 95490
M-8
M-10
K-l 2
K-14
II
II
II
II
2 peoole
3 people
3 people
4 people
chlorine
tablets
chlorine
tablets
Monogram Industries, Inc.
I 403C Freeman Blvd.
Redondo Beach, CA 90276
Handihead
III
3 Rals - 40
flushes
deodorant
Rarltan Engineering Co.
1025 N. High Street
Millvllle, NJ 08332
Lectra San
CHT t ank
PKT-15
PHT-30
I
III
III
III
unl inited
5 gals
15 gal flex.
30 gal flex.
hypochlo-
rous acid
de odorant
deodorant
1 . 5 arro
hrs per
flush
Thettord Corp.
Bex 1285
Ann Arbor, KI 48106
SeaFarer
Elect ra
Magic
sals
deodorant
gals
deodorant
5 a^ips 1
per flush j
Wilcox-Crittenden Div.
Gulf & Western Mfg. Cc.
699 Middle Street
Kiddletown, CT 06457
6021
6022
III
III
6012
6 C13
6014
III
III
III
15 gal flex.
30 gal flex.
10 gal rigid
17 gal rigid
25 gal rigid
de odorant
deodorant
"Guide to Marine Sanitation Devices," Boatlng, October, 1979.
-JRB Associates,
37
-------
be considered by vessel owners, operators, and manufacturers. The principal
considerations are the space, weight, and power requirements of the MSD.
2.3.1.1 Space
Available space on some recreational watercraft is limited. Space
constraints are most severe on sailing craft and small powerboats; any space
occupied by an MSD may reduce availabile storage area. While some vessels
have a limited amount of unused space in the bilge, installation of MSD equip-
ment in this area could limit accessibility of the equipment for routine
maintenance or repair.
2.3.1.2 Weight
Additional weight added to any vessel will reduce total buoyancy and
affect the vessel's center of moment. Reduced buoyancy would decrease the
carrying capacity of the vessel, thereby reducing the amount of fuel or equip-
ment or the number of people that the vessel can carry. Shifting the center
of moment may alter the ability of the vessel to right itself during roll.
Additional weight also results in decreased maneuverability. In the case of
MSD's equipped with holding tanks, the increase in weight as the tank fills
must also be considered; a full holding tank with a twenty-gallon capacity
would add as much weight to the vessel as would an additional adult passenger.
2.3.1.3 Power Requirements
Electrical power available on recreational vessels is most commonly
provided by storage batteries that are kept charged by main engine generators
or alternators. This power is used to operate lights, punps, electronic gear,
and accessories. Vessels equipped with refrigerators, electric stoves, space
heating, or air conditioning units usually provide AC power to this equipment
by means of separate generators driven by the main engine. Larger vessels are
sometimes equipped with marine generators, driven by auxiliary gasoline or
diesel engines.
Most electrically-driven MSD's are designed to operate on 12 volt direct
current supplied by storage batteries, although other power options are
available. Operation of these units will reduce power available to operate
other equipment. MSD's with high current demands nay require that a vessel
IPP Associates, Inc.-^
38
-------
owner install additional power sources — either storage batteries or
generating equipment — and result in additional expense.
2.3.1.4 Additional Physical Considerations
In addition to the principal factors of space, weight and power demand,
the following are also important considerations in assessing the capability
and suitability of an MSD:
• Ease of maintenance - Can the MSD be properly installed, maintained,
and repaired?
• Safety - Does the installed unit interfere with movement or operating
requirements of crew or passengers?
• Motion - Will the MSD, as installed, operate properly under conditions
of roll, pitch, and yaw?
• Supplies - Does the MSD require storage of dry or liquid chemical
supplies ?
The U.S. Coast Guard takes these additional design factors into account in the
MSD certification process.
2.3.2 Performance Data
No source of performance data, other than manufacturers' claims, has been
identified. MSD units with U.S. Coast Guard certification meet the criteria
established for such certification; this is, however, a certification of
design and not a guarantee of long-term operating performance.
While no scientific MSD performance data are available, some qualitative
information is presented in Tables 2.2 and 2.3. Table 2.2 is an evaluation of
commercially available MSD's prepared by the U.S. Coast Guard and included in
Recreational Vessel Waste Pollution, U.S. Coast Guard, June 1974. Table 2.3
presents the results of a survey conducted by Cruising World and published by
that magazine in October 1979. This survey of its readers (primarily
subscribing yacht owners) resulted in 242 responses. In addition to the
standard questionnaire, space was provided for individual comment on MSD's;
these results are summarized in the table and discussed in Section 2.5.2.
39
JRB Associates, Inc.—
-------
TABLE 2.3
Results of Cruising World's MSD Survey
QUESTIONS
ATLANTIC
SEABOARD
GREAT LAKES A
INLAND WATERS PACIFIC
OFTHEMIDWESTI SEABOARD
RESULTS
Under Over
3een Yes i 24 18
satisfactory? No ' 18 20
6 8
5 11
18 19
5 7
93 58ft
66 42ft
If you own Type 1, |
have you had service Yes 5 10
or maintenance problems? No 2 7
1 2
3
4 6
18 45ft
22 55ft
available' | 3 5
If Type III, are not available? i 16 23
pump-out facilities available witn ,
1 difficulty? | 6 10
4 6 1 3 5
1 | 7 6
6 8 | 4 11
26 21ft 1
53 43ft
45 36ft
1 2 7
Yes II . 1
Does your III i 1 5 *17
type emit
a tad odor? 1 5 13
No II 1 - 3
III 1 2 9
1
5 15
1
3 1
1 1
1
3 9
1 7
4 5
12 31ft
2 40ft
64 73 ft
27 69ft
3 60ft
24 27ft
Do you have a Y- Yes ^ 15 31
valve tor direct . 13 21
overboard discharge' j
3 5 I 5 13
5 11 1 10 14
72 49ft
74 51ft
While cruising 20ft ] 28 63
what percent of 40ft 9 II
the time do you 60^ 1 13 8
use shore facilities 80ft | 6 4
instead of your 100ft 3 6
onboard head'
2 10
2 1
3
2 5
5 1
13 14
2 6
1 8
3 6
2 5
130 53ft
3) 13ft
33 14*
26 lift
22 9ft
If you haven't
yet installed Type l?
an approved MSD Type II?
do you plan Type III?
to buy
9 21 1
15-1
8 7 :
_ 7
4
9 3
38 49ft
11 14ft
29 37ft
Do you think the dis-
charge from pleasure
boats heads makes a Yes 1 6 11
significant contribu- No i 55 67
lion to the pollution
of our waters? |
4 4
7 15
3 7
23 33
35 15ft
200 85ft
How do you Excellent j 1 2
i rate avail- Adequate 9 12
able MSD Less than adequate 31 49
technology? Inoperable j 15 27
3 3
6 9
2 8
2
5 8
15 22
6 7
5 2ft
40 16ft
132 55ft
65 27ft
How do you rate Excellent j - 1
government efforts Good ] - 1
to handle pollution Fair 11 7
attributable to Bad | 43 83
small boat owners?
1 1
4 2
6 16
1
2
6 8
19 28
2 1ft
5 2ft
40 17ft
195 80'x
Are you concerned Yes
about pollution' No
54 67
4 10
1 1 16
19 28
5 3
195 90ft
22 10ft
How would vou
describe the cruising Willing partner
person's role in Legal partner
relation to the gov- Guinea pig
! ernment regulations Victim
1 & the MSD industry?
2 4 | - 1
1 6 ! 1 1
19 22 | 6 4
46 67 5 16
i
2 2
1 5
10 9
16 27
1 1 4ft
15 6ft
70 29ft
177 73ft
Source: Day, G., and Brennan, B., "Readers Speak Out on MSDs", Cruising
World, October, 1979, p. 133.
JRB Associates, Inc.
40
-------
2.4 COST CONSIDERATIONS
Costs associated with existing, proposed, and future regulations are
receiving increasing public attention. While the nature of these concerns is
rather easy to discern, it is generally difficult to adequately address cost
considerations associated with any particular regulation. It is especially
difficult with respect to MSD regulations within the resource constraints of
this study. Reliable major cost parameter information (e.g., percentage of
current pleasure boating vessels in compliance with existing Federal
regulations) does not appear to be available from secondary sources; primary
data collection for this variable would require far more resources than are
available for this project.*
As a positive means of approaching cost concerns, we have set out the
major cost parameters for which data adequate for policy purposes could be
located or inferred, and combined these numbers in various ways to estimate
regulatory costs associated with MSD's. The computations focus on costs (in
1981 dollars) that would have been incurred by boat owners if 100% compliance
had been achieved during the 1977 to 1979 period with respect to current
regulations and a set of possible policy options. Possible associated
Federal, State, and local government costs, such as enforcement, are not
addressed. This is due to both the lack of resources and the ability to make
a reasonable assumption that an enforcement program can be designed and run to
at least, break even monetarily.
It is stressed that figures presented are policy (order of magnitude)
estimates only, and not based on data generated by highly refined accounting
techniques and/or statistically reliable surveys. For this reason, range
* Some knowledgeable individuals place current (1981) boater compliance with
MSD regulations at about 25%. The Oregon study discussed in Appendix C
contains a 65% compliance rate estimate. Data on 1976 compliance rates also
presented in Appendix C suggest an average compliance rate of 50% at that
time.
^ IRR Associates, Inc.
41
-------
estimates of the more relevant parameters are presented. Range estimates
(high and low values) reflect the fact that at least two statistics
fundamental to the analysis could not be determined with satisfactory
precision. These are: (1) installed-to-portable toilet conversion rates; and
(2) compliance rates. The belief exists that boaters dislike MSD's to the
point that dealers actually pull out manufacturer-installed devices on new
boats prior to delivery and add portable toilet facilities. Resources did not
permit tracking down reports such as these, which seem to defy conventional
business logic, i.e., if neither dealers nor boaters want permanent toilets,
why do manufacturers install them? Boaters are also reported to be
substituting portable toilets for installed devices on old boats. The low
estimates presented in the following pages allow for this phenomenon, i.e.,
they assume an 80% conversion rate for the 16' - 26' Class I boats and a 20%
conversion rate for the 26' - 40' Class II boats. The high estimates assume
that no conversion occurs.
Neither the high nor the low estimates presented reflect sensitivity of
the estimates to the rate of compliance with Federal regulations in January
1977 as a result of State laws that predate the Federal regulations. Instead,
estimates presented in some cases have utilized an average 1976 complaince
rate of just under 50%. As is discussed at the end of Appendix C, adequate
allowance for both factors (conversion and compliance rates) results in an
estimate of the number of boats affected by Federal regulations over the 1977
to 1979 period in the range of 200,000 to 500,000 with the most likely number
being 350,000. In order to adjust range estimates presented in the following
tables toward most likely point estimates one may multiply the lower bounds by
1.94 or divide the upper bounds by 1.35. Note, however, that not all figures
presented in this section are impacted by the imprecision in conversion and
1976 compliance rates: only those with two values in a single cell of a table
are impacted.
In terms of an overall conclusion, data presented elsewhere in this report
suggest that Type III devices are the most effective from a standpoint of
IRR Accnriatpc Inr
42
-------
aquatic impact and human health. Data presented below suggest that Type III
devices would have been the least costly during the 1976 to 1979 period. One
may draw the conclusion that Type III devices are likely to have been the most
cost-effective available for the 1976 to 1979 period. However, boater resis-
tance to Type III devices is high and collection of substantial additional data
would be necessary to prove this conclusion of historic cost effectiveness.
Additionally, it is of questionable value for determining a future policy
change. The numbers set out below can be employed to estimate these future
costs, given additional information on specific alternative policies to be
analyzed and assumptions deemed to be reasonable, e.g«, inflation and current
compliance rates. More information on sources of data and methods of compu-
tation is presented in Appendix C.
2.4.1 Cost Parameters
Major cost parameters include type of device, investment, operation,
maintenance, size of boat, effective date of regulations, and number of boats
with toilets. Each of these parameters is discussed below and related data
are presented. In subsequent sections, these numbers are combined in various
ways to estimate total compliance costs.
2.4.1.1 Type I and III* Devices Only
Only Type I and III MSD's are considered. The major reasons for not
considering the Type II MSD's are the following:
• The Type I and II devices are perfectly substitutable under
the present regulations and,
• Very few Type II devices are presently available on the
market for smaller boats. They are generally more expensive
than Type I devices and require more maintenance. This makes
them less popular and less suitable for occasionally used
pleasure boats.
*Unless otherwise stated, as used in Section 2.4, Type III device refers only
to holding tanks.
IRR Associates, Inc.
43
-------
2.4.1.2 Investment, Operation and Maintenance
The estimated investment and annual variable costs for the two kinds of
treatment technologies are summarized by different boat size classifications
in Table 2.4. The investment cost is the installed cost of the specific
device including purchase price and installation charges (i.e., costs for
labor and materials), but exclude cost of the toilet itself. The annual
variable costs to operate and maintain the treatment device are presented
in a separate column. These costs include such items as chemicals to treat
the waste, electricity to macerate it, and pumpout charges. In a free market
economy pumpout charges (prices) can be presumed to cover all associated
pumpout facility costs, e.g. , of the service provided and including original
investment, interest, maintenance, disposal and profit. Note that total
annualized costs have not been specified. Such costs may be useful for some
analyses but require a number of assumptions with respect to factors such as
interest rate, tax rate, and rate of decline in useful life. Similar
assumptions are required for life-cycle cost analysis.
Mote also from Table 2.4 that the costlier of the two technologies is the
Type I device. The Type I technologv adds about ^TOOO (l.S°') to the average
price of a boat while Tvpe IIT technologv onlv adds about $3^0 (. 5°') . To
offset this initial cost saving ($650) with reduced oDerating and maintenance
costs ($25) would require 26 vears (650 25), assuming no capital cost, and
it is unlikely that either device would last this long.
It has been suggested that the comparison of a pleasure craft to a second
home or summer residence is useful. In this regard, a waste treatment svstem
for a summer residence (septic tank and leaching field) costs upward of £2,000.
This is twice as much as a Type I for a pleasure craft.
2.4.1.3 Size of Boat
Table 2.4 also shows the relationship between boat length, boat price and
device cost. The major differences in device investment, maintenance and
operating costs arise from the need for more capacity (to handle a larger
number of people) as boat size increases.
44
JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
TABLE 2.4
ESTIMATED INVESTMENT, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
BY BOAT SIZE
(CURRENT DOLLARS)
Boat Size Class
Average Price
TYPE
I
TYPE IIT^
Per Boat"*
investment
Cost ^
Operation
and
Mai nt enance-
Investment
Cost2
Operation
and
Main t enan
16' - 26'
(I)
16,000
800
8
2 50
34
26' - AO'
(IT)
36 ,000
800
12
2 50
36
40' - 65'
(TTi)
150,000
] 400
33
550
60
Unweighted
Average Cost
Per Boat
67,000
1000
18
350
43
Based on an analysis of the average selling price of boats of various sizes in the Yachting/
Boating, Boat Owners Guide, 1981.
Based on average costs of marine sanitation devices at local marinas in the Washington, D.C.
area (exclusive of toilet cost - See Appendix C for details).
See Appendix C for details.
Specifically, cost figures are for a holding tank, not other Type III devices, which are
substantially more expensive.
-------
2.4.1.4 Effective Date of Regulations
Existing Coast Guard regulations were promulgated in 1975 and distinguish
between "new" and "existing" boats relative to that date- The compliance
schedule requires all boats manufactured after January 30, 1975 to comply with
Federal regulations as of that date. Boats existing prior to January 30, 1975
must have been brought into compliance by January 30, 1980. Therefore, to cal-
culate the net cost of total compliance with Federal regulations requires deter-
mination of the number of boats manufactured prior to January 30, 1977, and not
in compliance prior to that date, as well as all boats manufactured after that
date. Boats manufactured prior to January 30, 1977, the date on which the
Federal standards took effect, and which were already in compliance on that date
are not relevant to most analyses because it can be presumed that factors other
than Federal regulations (e.g., State regulations) were the cause of compli-
ance. Therefore, this analysis only considers boats manufactured prior to
January 30, 1977, which were not in compliance on that date, and boats manufac-
tured after that date.
2.4.1.5 Boats with Permanently Installed Toilets
The population of interest is further narrowed by specification in the
Federal regulations that only boats with installed toilets are covered by the
regulations. Table 2.5 presents estimates on the number of boats by size class
for the groups of boats that are affected by current Federal regulations. The
estimated number of boats with installed toilets are in the range of 200 to 500
thousand boats depending on the assumptions that are made in the analysis as
discussed above and in Appendix C.
2.4.1.6 Portable Toilets
The boat owner faced with compliance has the option to purchase a portable
toilet to replace his permanently installed tiolet. The cost differential is
heavily in favor of this option, and so it is assumed that a significant propor-
tion of boat owners, especially in the smaller size classifications, may choose
to comply in this manner. This further reduces the number of boats with
installed facilities. As discussed above, a marine sanitation device manufac-
turer estimates that 80% of boats in Class I and 20% of boats in Class II will
comply in this way. These factors have been applied to generate the low esti-
mates, while the high estimates make no allowance for conversion. Note that the
low cost estimates do not include approximately $100 per boat required to make an
"3R Associates, Inc.
46
-------
TABLE 2.5
ESTIMATES OF THE BOATS
AFFECTED BY THE FEDERAL MSD REGULATIONS
1977 TO 1979
Boat
Size Class
¦¦ Registered
Boats* (1979)
Estimated Boats
w/Toilets"" (1979)
Estimated /' Boats **
Affected by Fed. MSD
Reg. (1977 - 1979)
16-26
2,699,468
123,096
615,479
69,635
342,176
26-40
213,649
141,863
177,329
95,786
119,733
40-65
27,478
22,614
15,235
TOTAL
2,940,595
287,573
815,422
180,656
483,144
* National Marine Manufacturers Association, Boat Registration Statistics
1979, (Marex); Chicago, IL.
** The methodology used to derive these estimates is provided in Appendix C.
47
JRB Associates, Inc.—
-------
installed toilet inoperable and purchase a portable toilet. Over all possible
affected boats, this "correction" would add approximately $30 million to the low
estimate, i.e., from Table 2.5, (483,000-181,000) $100 = $30.2 million. How-
ever, it is debatable whether or not this should be counted as a compliance cost
since the regulations do not cover portable toilets.
2.4.1.7 Estimating 1980 and Beyond
The regulations provide for upgrading all affected boats to Federal
standards by 30 January 1980. For some purposes, however, it may be desirable
to estimate total compliance costs for 1980 and beyond. In this case affected
boats are only those manufactured each year (with toilets and in the 16 to 65
foot range). Table 2.6 presents this annual production estimate. The estimate
is based on the 1977 to 197 9 average number of boats manufactured (growth trend
is not taken into account) and historic proportions of boats utilized in States
with treatment of effluent vs. no discharge requirements (See Appendix C for
further details). Note that 17,000 to 51,000 boats (about 10% of the total
stock of affected boats) could be required to install MSD's annually depending
on preference for portable devices. (See Table 2.5.)
2.4.2 Estimated Cost of Total Compliance with Existing Federal Regulations
As of the End of 197 9
To evaluate alternative policy options it may be instructive to look at
what the total compliance costs would have been if all affected boats had
complied with current Federal regulations by the end of 1979. Table 2.7
presents such estimates by size of boat and type of device. Note that the
total full compliance cost to boat owners is estimated to range from $133 to
$333 million. Basically, these numbers have been determined from initial
investment cost data in Table 2.4, plus two years of operating and maintenance
costs from Table 2.4, multiplied by estimated number of affected boats from
Table 2.5 (distributed to devices based on the proportions used for Table 2.6
and all by boat length). Table 2.8 presents a similarily constructed estimate
of total costs each year for 1981 and beyond. Note that yearly costs are
estimated to be about 10% of the total costs required to bring the existing
stock of boats into compliance. Details of calculations are contained in
Appendix C.
2.4.3 Historic Costs of Policy Alternatives
For purposes of illustrating how the above framework can be applied to
aid analysis of policy alternatives, we have postulated a set of possible policy
IRR Associates, lnc.__
48
-------
TABLE 2.6
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF BOATS
REQUIRING MSDs MANUFACTURED EACH YEAR
SUBSEQUENT TO 1979
Size Class
Boats Requiring MSDs Manufactured
Each Year*
To tal**
No Discharge
State
Treat./Discharge
State
No. of new boats
16' - 26'
2,500
12,600
5,500
27,700
8,000
40,300
26' - 40'
1,800
2,200
5,600
7,000
7,400
9,200
40' - 65'
400
1,300
1.800
Total No.
4,700
12,500
17 ,200
of New Boats
15,200
36,000
50,300
•-'Based on historical proportion of utilization.
""Basically determined by dividing the total number of boats
built during the 1977 to 1979 period by three. Further detail
is provided in Appendix C.
49
JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
TABLE 2.7
ESTIMATED TOTAL COMPLIANCE COST OF FEDERAL MSD REGULATION
OVER 1977 - 1979 PERIOD
(Millions of Dollars)
BOAT SIZE CLASS
COMPLIANCE COSTS
TOTAL COMPLIANCE COST
TYPE 1
TYPE III
16' - 26'
39.1*
195.3
6.9
34.6
46.0
229.9
26' - 40'
60.0
75.0
7.4
9.2
67.4
84.3
40' - 65'
16.8
2.6
19.3
TOTAL COSTS
115.9
16.9
132.7
287.1
46.4
333.5
*An example calculation is as follows:
Data: Table 2.4 - Investment cost $800 plus 2 years operating and maintenance, $16 = $816
Table 2.5 - Affected boats, 69,635
Table 2.6 - Proportion "Treatment/Discharge State" = 5,500 + 8,000 = 0.6875
Calculation: $816 x 69,635 x .6875 = $39,065,235 ~ $39.1 million
-------
TABLE 2.8
ESTIMATED COST OF 100% COMPLIANCE WITH
FEDERAL MSD REGULATIONS EACH YEAR AFTER 1979*
(Millions of Dollars)
BOAT SIZE CLASS
ANNUAL COMPLIANCE COST
TOTAL ANNUAL
ADDITIONAL COSTS
TYPE I
TYPE I IT.
16' - 26'
4.5
22.6
0.7
4.0
5.2
26.6
26' - 40'
4.5
5.8
0.5
0.7
5.0
6.5
0
1
Ln
1.9
0.3
2.2
TOTAL ADDITIONAL COSTS
10.9
30.3
1.5
5.0
12.4
35.3
"Encompasses only new boats manufactured each year. Costs include the
initial investment plus one year of operation. The annual operating and
maintenance costs of boats built in prior years is not considered.
-------
alternatives and calculated 1977 to 1979 total compliance costs based on the
data presented above. The policy options examined are the following:
(I) Require all vessels that were not in compliance with the
regulation as of January 1977, and all vessels built after
1977, to install the Type I macerator/chlorinator MSD;
(II) Require all vessels built after January 1977 to install the Type I
macerator/chlorinator MSD; all "existing" vessels would be allowed
to retain the device presently installed on that vessel.
(Ill) Require holding tank Type III MSD's on all vessels that
were not in compliance with the regulation as of
January 1977, and all vessels built after January 1977;
and ;
(IV) Require holding tank Type III MSD's on all vessels built after
January 1977; "existing" vessels would be allowed to retain the
device presently installed on that vessel.
Table 2.9 summarizes the results of the policy alternative compliance
cost analyses. It presents the costs associated with each of the four options
described above plus those associated with existing regulations. The costs to
comply with the proposed EPA program options range from a high of $405 million
to a low of $18 million. Note that only Option I exceeds the costs of current
regulations and that Option IV would probably be the least costly program for
boat owners. However, substantial arguments against Option IV can be made on
both cost-effectiveness and equity grounds, i.e., most boats irould be excluded
from regulations. These arguments can also be raised with even more validity
against Option II, since its cost is higher. Among those remaining alternatives
(I, III and current regulations), on the surface at least, Option III would
appear to minimize costs and maximize effectiveness, i.e., it would be more
effective and cost 40% less. However, substantial additional data collection
and analyses would be necessary before a final conclusion could be drawn from
the alternatives.
52
JRB Associates, Inc.—
-------
TABLE 2.9
ESTIMATED COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE POLICY OPTIONS
OVER THE 1977 - 1979 PERIOD
(Millions of Dollars)
BOAT
SIZE CLASS
TOTAL COMPLIANCE COST 1/
Option T
Option 11
Option IIT
Option IV
Current
Regulat ions
16' - 26'
56.8*
284.1
19.7
98.6
22.1
1 10.7
7.7
38.4
46.0
229.9
26' - 40'
78.9
98.7
18.2
22.7
30.8
38.6
7.1
8.9
67.4
84.3
40' - 65'
22. 3
7-8
10.2
3.6
19. 3
TOTAL
158.1
405.1
45.7
129.1
63.2
159.5
18.4
50.9
132.7
333.5
—^Total compliance costs for each option = (// of boats by size class affected by specific EPA
policy decisions) x (the total compliance costs per boat by size class).
* For example, from Table 2.4 it can be determined that investment plus 2 years operating costs
for a Type I device equals $816. Table 2.5 shows that 69,635 boats are affected: $816 x 69,635
$56,822,160 ~ $56.8 million.
-------
2.5 "POPULAR PRESS" REPORTING OF THE MSD ISSUE
The "popular press" here refers primarily to newsletters, magazines, and
journals aimed at the boating public. Since the MSD issue is a concern almost
exclusively of boaters, marinas, boat builders, and manufacturers of boat
equipment, most of the popular literature addressing the issue is found in
boating newsletters and magazines. This section includes views expressed in
featured articles, editorials, and letters to the editors.
The majority of news coverage on the MSD issue centers on providing the
reader with an interpretation of the regulations, and information about the
devices. Opinions of readers have been a significant source of the "positions"
outlined in the following sections. Typically, the people who are content
seldom speak out and it is those who view themselves as being adversely
affected who are most ready to express their dissatisfaction.
2.5.1 Environmentalists' Positions
Environmentalist positions appearing in the popular press on the MSD
issue generally provide a layman's discussion of what is found in the scien-
tific literature describing effects of raw sewage and disinfectant chemicals
on the aquatic or marine environment.
People discussing MSD's from an environmentalist position are frequently
boat owners who do not want the general public to perceive them as careless
polluters. They object to unsanitary waters in marinas, harbors, and parts of
the Coastal Waterway, but do not necessarily believe that MSD's or the
regulations would help clean up these areas.
If any consensus could be discerned, it would be the view that the
chemicals released into the water each time an approved MSD is discharged
are at least as bad as, if not worse than, the raw sewage. The commentary
generally asserts that the chlorine and formaldehyde used as disinfectants
poison the environment. It is often stated that MSD chemicals, even in small
quantities, destroy fish eggs, shellfish spawn, small fish, and young aquatic
plants. It is also argued that urine should not have to be treated at all
because it does not transmit bacteria and viruses and it is generally nontoxic.
54
JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
The prime target of most of these arguments about chemical impacts is the
Type I MSD.
Some boaters contend that fecal material, like other organic matter,
provides nutrients to aquatic organisms, but should be macerated before
discharge. There is evidence in the boating and marine press that shellfish
can be contaminated by raw sewage. A marine trade newsletter referred to a
study of clams in which it was shown that it took 24 hours for the clams to
purge themselves of the coliform from sewage. 101
2.5.2 Boating Interest Group Positions
Among boat owners, there appears to be a general consensus of opposition
to MSD requirements as evidenced by the "popular press." This opposition
centers around two basic objections: one concerning the devices themselves
and the other concerning the regulations and their implications.
The principal reasons boat owners object to MSD requirements may be
summarized as follows:
(1) Cost of the device. Many owners complain about the high cost of
purchasing and installing a macerator/chlorinator system that will
enable them to discharge treated wastes overboard. The objection is
not so much to the added cost of a new vessel, but to the perceived
cost burden involved in retrofitting an extisting on-board toilet
system. Holding tanks and portable tanks, which cost less than a
Type I device but require onshore disposal facilities, are objected
to because charges for pumpouts (reported as high as $10 or more in
some places) are viewed as an unreasonable expense.
(2) Maintenance Problems. In a survey published by Cruising World in
October 1979, participants were asked their views about MSD's.
Among the 242 respondents, 40 indicated that they had Type I
devices; about half of those reported service or maintenance
problems. More significantly, 55% of the respondents rated MSD
technology as being "less than adequate' and another 27% rated it as
"inoperable." Many boat owners independently expressed the feeling
that they had been required by the Federal government to^urchase
and install expensive equipment that often doesn t work.
55
JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
(3) Inadequate pumpout facilities causing inconvenience and odor. Much
of the literature addressing MSD's acknowledges that pumpout facili-
ties are few and far between. For those who have pumpout facilities
where they moor their boats or buy fuel, and never venture away for
longer than a weekend, this presents no problem (except when that
facility is shut down for extended periods when it is needed most).
Much of the boating public, however, value their vessels as a means
of exploring more distant harbors and secluded areas. These are the
people faced with the unpleasant prospect of having a full tank and
no place to dispose of its contents. Of the 124 respondents who
commented on the availability of pumpout facilities in the Cruising
World survey, 43 percent indicated that they were "not available,"
and another 36 percent indicated that they were "available with
difficulty." Difficulties that were described included having to
maneuver into a small or crowded docking area, finding that the
pumps were not working, finding that the facility was operated
during only limited hours, and needing to leave the boat to hunt
for the facility attendant. The odor objected to is not only that
of the raw sewage but also of the chemicals used. In the survey
conducted by Cruising World, 88 respondents indicated that they used
a Type III MSD, and of these, 73 percent replied that it emitted a
bad odor. Among the 39 respondents with Type I MSD, 31 percent
reported bad odors. (Only 5 respondents had a Type II device.)
(4) Space and power requirements. Sailors more often than power boaters
object to the space and power required for the MSD. Space is of
particular concern in the Type II and III MSD's where sizable tanks
are needed to accomodate the treatment medium or hold the sewage.
Not only do people complain about sacrificing limited storage space
for the tanks, but for yacht racers the added weight is viewed as a
penalty. Many small sailing vessels equipped with outboard engines
do not have an onboard means of recharging batteries drained by use
of their MSD. Even those that have built-in engines may find that
the MSD drains power they can scarcely afford when they are under
sail. For these reasons, many sailboat owners would prefer to use
an MSD that was compact and manually operated, if one were available.
Additionally, boaters object to the regulations, the manner in which
they were developed, what they see as a "hand-in-glove" relationship between
the government and the manufactuer of certified MSD's, and the rationale for
what are perceived to be particularly stringent regulations.
Many letters to editors of journals indicated that the regulations are
confusing. Owners of boats built before 1975, who have a device more sophisti-
cated than just a macerator, often say they don't know whether their equipment
meets the colifortn discharge limitations of the regulations. Many owners with
holding tanks and recirculating systems who inject disinfectant into their
56
JRB Associates, Inc. ——
-------
system believe they have treated their sewage as well as a Type I MSD and
should not be required to pay for shore based pumpout facilities. The
apparent consensus expressed by boaters and editorial writers in boating
journals is that the regulations are a tangled mess.
Boaters also express their belief that noncompliance with the regulation
is inevitable, justifiable, and to a certain extent, tolerated by
the Coast Guard. If a boat owner has a holding tank equipped with a Y-valve,
and there are no shore pumpout facilities where the boat is used, the owner
will likely discharge the waste the first time he perceives no one is looking.
To the extent that this occurs, the regulations are not effective. Many
boaters say that while they do not object to pollution control, they do object
to unworkable regulations.
Anger over the government's perceived role in ensuring a sizable profit
manufacturers of certified MSD's has surfaced in letters from the boating
public. Complaints are even more frequently raised about the charges for
shore-based pumpout facilities—enterprises that owe their existence to the
regulations. Boat owners express a sense of being victimized by MSD manu-
facturers and DumDout stations as a direct result of the regulations.
What disturbs most boaters about the regulations is that they do not
believe that their sewage creates a problem requiring such strict regulations.
While most boaters will acknowledge that the waters at many marinas are
generally unfit for swimming because of discharges from toilets, galleys, and
bilges, they do not believe that a prohibition on all sewage discharges within
three miles of the coast is justified to prevent what they view as a small
number of isolated incidents of pollution.
An article by Dan Spurr published in Cruising World in August, 1980 pro-
moted the idea that the discharge of raw sewage from boats had to be stopped
in order to provide clean shellfish, safe swimming areas, and safe drinking
81
water from the Great Lakes. This article elicited considerable response from
the journal's readers. Among those who responded was Stuart Ragland,
Jr., M.D., who challenged anyone to show evidence of cases of disease
attributable to the discharge of raw sewage from small craft.^He argued that
57
JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
the coliform count in harbors and inland waters is higher in winter than in
summer because cities chlorinate their sewage in summer months, yet there are
no noticeable increases in hepatitis or typhoid between winter and summer,
and no epidemiological data to link sewage discharges from pleasure boats to
outbreaks of these diseases. Dr. Ragland, in expressing these views, spoke
for many who believe that the significant pollution risk for shellfish beds,
swimming areas, and drinking water supplies is from cities with inadequate
sewage systems, not from boaters. Their position is that to encumber the
boater with impracticable regulations for the sake of having a complete set
of regulations that includes all discharges, is to value bureaucratic order
more than real world evidence.
For many years, boaters have held to the ethic of not dumping anything
overboard that is not biodegradable. Boaters object to floating trash for
aesthetic reasons and because it interferes with their propellers. The ethic
includes such ideas as puncturing aluminum cans at both ends to ensure that
they will sink to the bottom. Trash is almost invariably brought back to
the dock to be dumped in a garbage bin on shore. This works relatively well
using only an "honor system." What concerns many boaters is that the regula-
tions imply that they eagerly defile the water. Why else would the regulations
insist on specific approvable devices? If shellfish beds, beaches, and water
intake areas were the real concern, it is argued that these areas could simply
be posted as off limits to anchoring pleasure boats.
Boaters use the water around them to swim, water ski, scrub their decks,
and clean their anchors. Many of them also enjoy eating fish and shellfish
from the waters where they use their boats. They are not against clean
waters, but they object to regulations which they feel are unworkable, mis-
guided, and not linked to real problems.
2.5.3 Other Key Interest Groups
Other key interest groups are the manufacturers of MSD's, boat manufac-
turers and the regulatory personnel at the State level concerned with aquatic
and marine sanitation. Apart from their advertising in the boating journals,
manufacturers of marine products occasionally express incisive personal views
58
JRB Associates, Inc. —
-------
in their own business literature. The view most often expressed by MSD manu-
facturers is that coordinated efforts should be made within the industry to
induce the Coast Guard to be stronger in its enforcement of the existing EPi*
regulations. Specifically, this industry would want to see more vessel inspec-
tions and more fines obtained from violators. Chapter 3 reports the results of
a Coast Guard-sponsored survey regarding MSD's that was sent to both MSD manu-
facturers and pleasure boat manufacturers. Information that vas obtained from
nearly all States is also presented.
59
JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
60
JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
CHAPTER 3
PRIMARY DATA ON KEY MSD INTEREST GROUPS
'RR Associates, Inc.
61
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
IRR Accnriafpc Inc.
62
-------
3. PRIMARY DATA ON KEY MSD INTEREST GROUPS
3.1 OBJECTIVE OF PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION
The gathering of primary data was intended to complement the search for
secondary information by:
• providing up-to-the-minute assessments of how key groups view the
current status of the MSD regulations, and
• identifying additional research, studies and other materials that
would add to the compilation of secondary data sources.
Given the focus on providing information relevant to the evaluation of
alternative MSD regulatory policies, there was a specific need for current
information concerning:
• the present status of State MSD-related laws and regulatory programs;
• State views regarding the adequacy of the Federal role in MSD
standard-setting, monitoring and enforcement; and
• the probable response of the States if the present Federal
regulations were rescinded, effectively returning to the
States regulation of MSD's.
This section of the report presents the findings of the primary data-
gathering that was completed during the project.
3.2 IDENTIFICATION OF THE "KEY PUBLICS" INVOLVED IN MARINE SANITATION
The key groups which have a major direct interest in marine sanitation
devices for pleasure craft can be readily identified:
• manufacturers of MSD's;
• boat builders and marinas who must help their clients meet the
mandate for installation of a U.S. Coast Guard-certified device on
all new craft that are equipped with permanent heads; and
• the boat owners who must comply with the Federal regulations now
in effect for both new and existing vessels.
It is less easy to circumscribe the groups that have an indirect interest
in MSD regulation, but quite clearly all of the people who may be termed the
"non-boating public" can be potentially affected by the discharge of human
waste from recreational vessels into the Nation's waters.
IRR Associates, Inc.
63
-------
3.2.1 U.S. Coast Guard MSP Survey
The seven weeks available for primary data gathering was not sufficient
to allow a broad, systematic survey of the concerns of each of the key groups
involved in the MSD controversy. Fortunately, early in the study period, it
was learned that the Merchant Marine Technical Division of the Office of
Merchant Marine Safety of the U.S. Coast Guard had commissioned the David W.
Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center (NSRDC), Annapolis
Laboratory, to investigate the problems inherent in requiring Type II sewage
treatment systems on vessels 65 feet in length or less.
In late summer, 1980, as part of the research project, the NSRDC sent a
questionnaire to more than one hundred MSD manufacturers, boat builders and
boating organizations to determine the immediate concerns of the marine
industry regarding marine sanitation devices. While the Type II study is
still on-going, the Coast Guard approved access to the original survey
documents to obtain any information pertinent to EPA's review of the MSD
regulations.
While specifically directed at investigating the feasibility of devel-
oping Type II treatment systems for snail craft and identifying the factors
that influence corporate decisions to proceed with the commercial development
of Type II systems, the Coast Guard survey investigated many issues concern-
ing the overall acceptance and use of MSD's. The Coast Guard survey was
sent to a total of 107 potential respondents classified into four groups, as
shown below in Table 3.1 together with the number of questionnaires returned
through February 1, 1981.
TABLE
3.1
BREAKDOWN OF RESPONSE TO U
.S. COAST
GUARD MSD
SURVEY
Sample
Percent
Size
Responses
Response
MSD Manufacturers
28
17
61%
Powerboat Manufacturers
46
18
39%
Sailboat Manufacturers
23
8
35%
Boating Organizations
10
3
30%
TOTAL
107
46
43%
JRB Associates, Inc.—
64
-------
3.2.2 Limitations of the Primary Data
Because the Coast Guard survey was conducted by mail, the overall response
rate of 43% is good, although it would have been particularly helpful to have
more returns from the boating organizations. It must be remembered that the
respondents were not randomly selected from an identified universe of insti-
tutions within each of the four subgroups. Because representativeness cannot
be assured, care must be taken in interpreting the results. It is true, of
course, that the number of MSD manufacturers, powerboat manufacturers, etc.,
is small and that the survey covered typical organizations in each of
the four groups. For the purposes of reporting the data, the responses of
the power boat and sailboat manufacturers have been combined into one group
of "boat manufacturers."
In line with noting the characteristics of the Coast Guard sample, it
is also important to acknowledge that neither time nor funding was available
to initiate a primary data-gathering effort among the boating and non-boating
public. The anti-MSD position of a major segment of the owners of larger
pleasure craft is voiced clearly in the secondary literature. As is dis-
cussed below in more detail, the general consistency of how the other major
interests view the difference of opinion on MSDs between boaters and non-
boaters is strongly indicative of the result that would probably have been
obtained had the boaters and non-boaters been asked to voice their opinion
about MSDs.
3.2.3 Discussions with State Officials Concerning MSD Matters
The Coast Guard was also helpful in identifying the appropriate State
officials to contact regarding MSD policies. The contact lists for the
States provided by the Coast Guard greatly expedited the task of locating
the individual in the State government who was in the best position to dis-
cuss the States' MSD-related activities.
A topic guide v;as developed to guide the telephone discussion with State
personnel about their State's involvement in MSD-related activities. Table
3.2 reveals that a majority of the State personnel contacted concerning MSD
issues were acting as State Boating Law Administrators in positions with
State departments of game and fish, natural resources, parks and recreation,
and related departments. If the initial contact suggested by the Coast Guard
did not feel well-informed about MSDs or if he or she felt someone else
IRR Associates, lr"~
65
-------
could offer more information on particular parts of the discussion, an alter-
nate respondent was then located. These individuals included specialists in
water quality and wastewater sanitation.
TABLE 3.2
GENERAL OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY
OF STATE PERSONNEL
CONTACTED OX >1SD
ISSUES
Number Contacted
Boating Law Administrator/
Boating Coordinator
26
Marine Police/Other Boating
Enforcement Officer
13
Water Quality Specialist
6
Sanitary Engineer
3
Health Department Official
1
TOTAL
*
49
Includes District of Columbia and
all States
with the exception of Alaska and
Massachusett s.
In general, the State personnel were well informed about regulatory
issues pertaining to MSDs at both the State and Federal level. This was
particularly true of those individuals in States where water quality was
a top priority issue, such as those States with EPA-approved no-discharge
waters. A majority of the contacts were aware that the Federal regulations
applied only to boats with permanently installed toilets. Fewer individuals
were familiar with all three basic types of MSDs (i.e., could describe the
>RR Associates, Inc.
66
-------
type of equipment with the Coast Guard classification of Type I, II, and
III). All of the State personnel seemed well-acquainted with their own
State's laws (if any) regarding marine waste disposal and MSD's.
3.3 OVERALL PERCEPTIONS OF THE MARINE POLLUTION PROBLEM
Respondents to the Coast Guard survey were asked to say what they per-
ceived to be the non-boating and boating public's attitude toward MSD re-
quirements. As noted at the foot of Table 3.3, consideration of the results
must take into account that a number of respondents say one cannot reasonably
assess the non-boating public's attitude because they are likely to be un-
aware of the issue altogether. Even after taking that into account, however,
it is still apparent that the non-boaters are viewed as much stronger sup-
porters of MSD's than the boating public.
The 17 MSD manufacturers responding perceive the widest rift, with none
saying that the boating public believes MSD's are "needed" and roughly 60%
(10 manufacturers) saying the boating public thinks MSDs are "not needed."
All three of the boating organizations also indicate that boaters do not see
the need for MSD's. A considerably higher percentage of boat manufacturers
appears to think that boaters do see the need for MSD's. About twice as many
boat makers say the boating public sees MSD's as "needed" or "desirable"
(23% + 46% = 69%) than the MSD manufacturers, only 35% of whom say boaters
see MSD's as "desirable."
When the State contacts were asked about how they perceived the attitude
of the boating and non-boating public, the profile of their response conformed
with that of the boat manufacturers, Over 60% of the State contacts say that
the boating public believes MSD's are either "desirable" or "needed." The
remainder believe the boating public opposes MSD's.
The perception that the boat manufacturers and State contacts have that
the majority of boaters see MSD's as at least "desirable" does not conform
to the impression of the boaters' position that is reflected in many prominent
boating magazines. It would be wise to remember that the percentage of boaters
with vessels large enough to have an installed head is a small proportion of
all boaters in the United States. While we have not uncovered any survey that
compared the attitudes of owners of boats without heads to those of owners
of boats with heads, one might expect to find that the fishermen or water-skiing
enthusiasts with small boats would be inclined to favor the control of sewage
IRR Accm-iatPC Inr
67
-------
TABLE 3.3
PERCEPTION OF PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD MSD REQUIREMENTS
What do you perceive as the (non-boating)(boating) public's attitude toward requiring an MSD on recreational
vessels less than 65 feet in length?
Needed
Desirable
Not Needed
Non-
B.P. a
Unaware
ti
No Opinion;
Don11 Know
%-agc
Base
Non-
B.P.b B.P.C
Non-
B.P. B.P.
Non-
B.P. B.P.
Non-
B.P.
Non-
B.P. B.P.
MSD Manufacturers^
17
35%
0%
24
35
12
59
—
29
6
Boat Manufacturers^
26
31%
23%
42
46
8
31
—
19
0
Boating Organizations^
3
33%
0%
33
0
0
100
—
33
0
State MSD Contacts3
49
36%
35%
28
27
2
39
29
6
0
The State data were obtained during telephone discussions in which many (31%) of the State contacts said
they felt the non-boating public was generally unaware of this issue and, therefore, could not be viewed as
having an opinion. The data for the three other groups were obtained on a structured self-administered sur-
vey and show much higher percentages registering "no opinion"; it is likely that many of these respondents
arc also saying that the non-boating public has too little awareness of this issue to have an opinion.
^Non-B.P. means "Non-Boating Public."
CB.P. means "Boating Public," those who own recreational vessels.
Source: Survey regarding Marine Sanitary Devices by the David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development
Center; Annapolis Laboratory, for the U.S. Coast Guard Survival Systems Branch, Merchant Marine Technical
Division, Office of Merchant Marine Safety, Fall 1980. (Hereinafter this source is identified as the U.S.
Coast Guard MSD Survey, 1980.)
-------
discharge from larger pleasure craft. In the absence of any clearer definition
of who constitutes the "boating public," and having limited secondary opinion
data from the boaters themselves (e.g., the Cruising World survey reported in
2.5.2), it is important to consider whether the attitudes within the boater
population may be stratified depending on the type and size of boat and how
the boat is principally used by its owner (e.g. , fishing, sailing, scuba-diving
cruising, etc.).
The Coast Guard survey asked a follow-up question about the need to
install Type II or Type III MSD's on recreational vessels, and, while the
balance of opinion did not change, higher percentages say that boaters see
Type II and III devices as unnecessary.
3.3.1 Effect of Regulation on MSP Compliance
Significantly, Table 3.4 reveals that there is no agreement as to the
effect environmental regulations have had on the installation of MSD's.
(The question wording leaves some room to consider whether it refers speci-
fically to regulations for MSD's or to environmental regulations in general,
but in context it is likely that most read it as meaning MSD regulations.)
The results suggest that regulations are not viewed as being an adequate
stimulus for MSD installation.
3.3.2 Level of Enforcement Needed
The results reported in Table 3.5 may contribute to explaining why
regulations are viewed as not having had greater impact on MSD installation.
In referring to the level of enforcement necessary to insure proper use of
a Type II device, three-fourths of the MSD Manufacturers said "strict" en-
forcement efforts would be required. A clear majority of the boat manu-
facturers also believes that "moderate" or "strict" enforcement would be
necessary. These data, along with comments that were written in about
these questions, indicate that strong enforcement measures are thought to
be necessary in order to ensure that any type of MSD is installed.
Of those State contacts who gave an estimate of the percentage of
regulated vessels now in compliance, they appear either to know whether a
great many are in compliance (over 75%) or whether most are not in compli-
ance (0-25%). Of the 13 States that are estimated to have compliance over
75%, seven are States with EPA-approved "no discharge" areas. The compli-
ance estimates are reported in Table 3.6.
IRR Associates, lnr
69
-------
TABLE 3.4
PERCEPTION OF THE IMPACT OF REGULATIONS ON INSTALLATION
OF MSDs ON PLEASURE CRAFT
In your opinion, what impact have the environmental regulations had on the
installation of MSDs on pleasure craft?
MSD Manufacturers
Boat Manufacturers
Boating Organizations
%-age Significant Some Little No No
Base Impact Impact Impact Impact Response
17 18% 24
26 46% 38
3 0% 33
59 0 0
15 0 0
33 0 33
Source: U.S. Coast Guard MSD Survey, 1980.
¦JRB Associates, Inc.-
70
-------
TABLE 3.5
PERCEPTION OF DEGREE OF ENFORCEMENT
REQUIRED TO INSURE PROPER USE
OF TYPE II MSD
In your opinion, wliaL relative degree of enforcement: would be
required to insure the proper use of Type TT MSD's?
%-age
Base
No
Base_ S t r i c t Mode r aLe Minimal Vol tint a ry Response
MSD Manufacturers
17
76%
24
0
0
0
Boat Manufacturers
26
35%
31
15
19
0
Boating Organizations
3
33%
0
33
0
33
Source: U.S. Coast Guard MSD Survey, 1980.
-------
TABLE 3.6
ESTIMATION OF PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VESSELS WITH MSDs
From what you know, about what percentage of the recreational vessels in your
State that are equipped with built-in heads have installed marine sanitation
devices to comply with Federal regulations?
State Contacts
(Percentage Base = 49)
0-25 percent
39%
26-50 percent
4
51-75 percent
6
Over 75 percent
27
Don 11 know
24
Source: Telephone discussions with State personnel regarding State
marine sanitation policies.
72
¦JRB Associates, Inc.^—
-------
3.4 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF MSD OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Table 3.7 reveals thac nearly half of the State contacts mentioned the
lack of punpout facilities as an important factor that discourages the use
of MSD's. The cost of the devices was the next most frequently mentioned
reason. It is important to note that two of the factors — lack of pumpout
facilities and lack of uniform discharge laws — have nothing to do with the
mechanical or performance characteristics of the devices themselves.
The Coast Guard survey respondents were asked to specify what they felt
is a reasonable retail price range for an MSD for the three size classes of
small vessels. The full distribution of the estimates is shown in Table 3.8.
Because the technology is not specific, the estimates can be interperted as
what respondents believe is a reasonable price to ask someone to pay to treat
a vessel's sewage. Recalling the average MSD Type I and Type III selling
prices presented in Table 2.4, the grand mean estimates are much lower than
the projected investment costs for Type I devices in each boat size category
but are higher than the projected investment costs of Type III holding tank
devices in each of the size categories.
The Coast Guard survey asked respondents to rate the importance of a
dozen characteristics of a small vessel Type II MSD for both powerboat and
sailboat applications. The results are shown in Table 3.9. Simplicity of
operation is viewed by the largest number as the key factor for powerboats,
and physical size receives the most mention as the key factor for sailboats.
These respondents were also asked to identify the reasons why boat owners
select or do not select each of the major types of MSD's. These comments
are summarized in Tables 3.10-3.13.
73
JRB Associates, Inc.^—
-------
TABLE 3.7
MAJOR FACTORS DISCOURAGING THE USE OF MSDs
What are the major factors discouraging the use of marine sanitation devices?
State Contacts
(Percentage Base = 49)
Lack of pumpout facilities for holding tank
devices 49%
Cost (in general) 35
- purchase cost 6
- installation cost 4
- operating cost 6
Lack of adequate enforcement of current MSD
regulations 14
Maintenance requirements 10
Lack of uniform discharge laws across
all states 6
Physical size of the devices 4
Power (electricity) required 4
Possibility that the regulations may change 4
None; no real discouraging factors;
boaters aren't resisting 10
Other answers : 39
• Inconvenience of holding tanks, e.g.,
odor and pumpout
• Other sources of pollution not controlled,
e.g., municipal wastewater and storm-
water discharge
• Need for MSD's not sufficiently proven
• Majority of boats too small to need an MSD
• Apathy of boaters to install MSD
• Confusion created by various interest groups
(Percentage totals more than 100 because of multiple reasons given.)
Source: Telephone discussions with State personnel regarding State
marine sanitation policies.
JRB Associates, Inc.
74
-------
TABLE 3.8
MSP PRICE RANGE ESTIMATES
what do you consider to be a reasonable retail price range for
small vessel MSDs for boats in the following size ranges?
A) MSP Manufacturers
BOAT SIZE CLASS
LESS THAN 25 FEET 25 FEET TO 45 FEET 45 FEET TO 65 FEET
LO
MID
HI
LO
MID
HI
LO
MID
HI
1)
400
500
750
2)
200
(250)
300
300
(450)
600
900
(1200)
1500
3)
<500
500
(750)
1000
1000
(500)
2000
4)
<100
150
(175)
200
200
(350)
500
5)
100
350
500
6)
350
(375)
400
350
(925)
1500
1000
(2000)
3000
7)
500
500
(625)
850
850
(1000)
1150
8)
2500*
5000*
12 ,000*
9)
50
(75)
100
100
(550)
1000
1000
(2000)
3000
10)
450
450
450
11)
800
800
800
12)
400
(450)
500
400
(450)
500
400
(450)
500
13)
600
(800)
1000
600
(800)
1000
600
(800)
1000
14)
250
500
500
15)
150
(225)
300
150
(225)
300
150
(225)
300
16)
250
350
450
17)
<100
100
(125)
150
250
(325)
400
(TOTAL
m
S56254
16 ests.)
(S8025
* 16) =
($12,300
416)
Average Est.
Cost"
S 352
S 502
S 769
B) Powerboat Manufacturers
1)
200
2)
100
3)
50
(175)
4)
150
5)
300
6)
300
7)
200
8)
100
9)
200
10)
NR
11)
NR
12)
NR
13)
200
14)
250
(275)
15)
250
16)
NR
17)
NR
18)
NR
300
150
300
(TOTAL
S2450 4 12 ests.)
Average Est. Cost»S 204
500
300
400
(325)
200
495
400
400
300
300
NR
NR
NR
400
NR
(625)
NR
NR
NR
(S4145 *11)
$ 377
500
250
750
500
500
900
(575)
350
NP.
500
600
1,000
600
NR
NR
NR
600
NR
(625)
NR
NR
N'R
(S6250
S 625
900
750
10) -
(continued)
_JRB Associates, Inc.
75
-------
TABLE 3.8
(Continued)
C) Sailboat Manufacturers
LESS THAN 25 FEET
25 FEET TO 45
FEET
40 FEET TO 65 FEET
L0
MID
HI
L0
MID
HI
LO
MID
HI
1)
200
(238)
275
250
(325)
400
300
(400)
500
2)
200
500
(600)
700
500
(600)
700
3)
250
500
750
4)
200
(300)
400
250
(500)
750
1000
(2000)
3000
5)
50
75
100
100
(175)
250
250
(325)
400
6)
100
200
400
7)
130
400
400
8)
NR
NR
NR
(TOTAL
-
S1293 t
7 ests.)
($2700 ~
7) -
($4875 *
7) -
Average Est.
Cost"
$ 185
$ 386
$ 696
D) Boating Organizations
1)
NR
NR
NR
2)
100
150
250
3)
NR
NR
NR
(TOTAL
-
S100 + 1
est.)
($150 t
1) -
($250 4
1) -
Average Est.
Cost=
S100
$150
$250
(Grand Total
Estimates :
$9,468 >
36 ests.)
(GTE:
$15,020 4
35 ests.)
(GTE:
. $23,675
* 34 ests
Grand Mean
Estimates :
$ 263
CME:
$ 429
GME :
$ 696
¦ma
ne
3BS
* Excluded from calculations to avoid skewing the small data set.
Source: U.S. Coast "Guard USD Survey, 1980
76
JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
TABLE 3.9
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF MSD (TYPE II) OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
I'or (power boats) (sail boats), what relative importance would you assign to the following characteristics
for a small vessel (less than 65 feet) Type II MSD:
Very Important
Important
Slightly/Not
Important
MSD
Mfrs.
Boat
Mfrs.
Boat
Orgzns.
MSD
Mf rs.
Boat
Mf rs.
Boat
Orgzns.
MSI)
Mfrs.
Boat Mfrs.
Boat
Orgzn
s.
Power
Sail
Power
Sail
Power
Sail
Power
Sail
Power
Sail
Power
Sail
Power
Sail
Power
Sail
Power
Sail
Simple to Operate
65%
41%
56%
50%
100%
100%
29
47
35
39
0
0
6
12
9
11
0
0
Purchase Cost
59%
59%
48%
50%
67%
100%
41
35
39
39
33
0
0
6
13
11
0
0
Installation Cost
59%
59%
48t.
33%
67%
100%
41
35
26
50
33
0
0
6
26
17
0
0
Physical Size
53%
94%
56%
83%
33%
50%
47
6
35
17
33
50
0
0
9
0
33
0
Serviceabi 1 tty
47%
41%
48%
50%
100%
100%
35
47
43
39
0
0
18
12
9
11
0
0
Maintenance Requirements
41%
47:;
43%
44%
67%
50%
47
47
48
39
33
50
12
6
9
17
0
0
Power Required
35%
100%
43%
78%
33%
50%
47
0
48
22
33
50
18
0
9
0
33
0
Operating Cost
29%
35%
13%
17%
100%
50%
53
47
43
44
0
50
18
18
43
39
0
0
Capac it y
18%
18%
26%
11%
67%
50%
59
59
65
78
33
50
23
23
9
11
0
0
We i ght
18%
64%
13%
39%
0%
50%
41
18
39
44
0
50
41
18
48
17
100
0
Disinfectant Requirements
18%
12%
9%
11%
0%
50%
- 64
65
43
39
67
50
18
23
48
50
33
0
Operating Noise
12%
12%
0%
6%
0%
0%
35
44
52
44
33
50
53
44
48
50
67
50
33
CD
Source: U.S. Coast Guard MSD Survey, ]980.
-------
TABLE 3.10
REASON'S TYPE I FLOW-THROUGH MSD SELECTED OR NOT SELECTED
PRO TYPE I
A) MSD Manufacturers
- ease of use
- no onboard storage of sewage
- easy to defeat by not using
sanitizer
- requires little modification
- general lack of knowledge of
MSD1 s
- less stringent effluent stan-
dards
- smaller size
CON TYPE I
- expensive - purchase & operation
- too large
- electric power consumption
- requires maintenance and servicing
- unreliable operation
- complexity of equipment
B) Powerboat Manufacturers
- \,7ill use if over-board dis-
charge allowed
- convenient
- easy to use
- pump-out
- better size
- too expensive
- power requirements
- poor reliability
- odor
- chemicals needed
- not totally accepted in U.S. and
not at all in Canada
C) Sailboat Manufacturers
- convenient system
- low cost of operation
- lower price than Type II
- high cost
- high power requirements
- complexity
- poor reliability
- not legai in all area
D) Boat Organizations
- easy to purchase (none given)
- lowest price
- simple to operate
Source: U.S. Coast Guard MSD Survey, 1980.
JRB Associates, Inc.
78
-------
TABLE 3.11
REASONS TYPE II FLOW-THROUGH MSD SELECTED OR NOT SELECTED
PRO TYPE II
A) MSD Manufacturers
- more ecologically sound;
better effluent quality
- no pumpout
- simplicity of operation
CON TYPE II
- expensive
- lack of availability
- maintenance and servicing
- size
- power requirements
- difficult to meet discharge
specifications
- limited capacity
B) Powerboat Manufacturers
- convenient
- easy to use
- minimal maintenance
- superior treatment levels
- high cost
- large size
- large weight
- lack of availability
- not well designed; too complex
- draws too much current
- odor
- not totally accepted in U.S. and
not at all in Canada
C) Sailboat Manufacturers
- inadequate pumpout for
Type III
- convenient system
- higher cost
- high power requirement
- complexity
- poor reliability
- requires more space and service
D) Boat Organizations
- least expensive system - higher cost
- can utilize existing toilet - more difficult to find
- relatively simple to install
- inadequate pumpout for
Type III
Source: U.S. Coast Guard MSD Survey, 1980.
JRB Associates, Inc.
79
-------
TABLE 3-12
REASONS TYPE III-HOLDING TANK MSD SELECTED OR NOT SELECTED
PRO TYPE III-H.T.
CON TYPE III-H.T.
A) MSD Manufacturers
- simple
- inexpensive
- low power
- little maintenance & servicing
- easy to bypass
- not aware of availability of
other type MSD's
lack of pumpout facilities
odors
size
explosion potential
price
B) Powerboat Manufacturers
- simple
- inexpensive
- meets no discharge require-
ments
- lack of pumpout facilities
- psychological problems with
carrying sewage on boat
- high cost of pumpout
C) Sailboat Manufacturers
- lower price
- relatively compact
- greater holding capacity than
Type III recirculating
- easy to operate
- easy to maintain
- power requirements less for
most boats
- dockside discharge or offshore
through a thru-hull outlet
- lack of pumpout stations
- afraid of leaks
- would rather use space for some-
thing else
- danger of explosion
- size limitations
D) Boat Organizations
- necessary on some waters
Source: U.S. Coast Guard MSD
Survey, 1580
- lack of punpout facilities
- cost of pumpout
- installation difficult on many
boats, especially sailboats
- very expensive
- difficult to maintain
- odor
-JRB Associates, Inc.
80
-------
TABLE 3.13
REASONS TYPE III-RECIRCULATING MSD SELECTED OR NOT SELECTED
PRO TYPE III-RECIRCULATING
A) MSD Manufacturers
- inexpensive
- easily installed
- greater capacity
- no holding tanks needed
- compact, self-contained
- easy maintenance
CON TYPE III-RECIRCULATING
- odor
- maintenance and servicing
- requires chemicals
- should be cleaned after every
weekend of use
- limited capacity
B) Powerboat Manufacturers
- lower price
- easy to use
- more applicable to smaller
boats with restricted hull
space
lack pumpout facilities
too expensive
odor
poor reliability
lack holding capacity
C) Sailboat Manufacturers
- lower price
- compact
- easy to use
- relatively inexpensive instal-
lation
seIf-containment
low holding capacity
objectionable odors
objectionable functioning
recirculation flow sporadic
lack of pumpout
D) Boat Organizations
(none given)
higher cost
odor
lack of pumpout facilities
Source: U.S. Coast Guard MSD Survey, 1980.
81
JRB Associates, Inc.—
-------
3.5 PRESENT STATUS OF STATE MSD-RELATED PROGRAMS
More than four out of five of the States are reported to have had laws
regulating sewage discharge from waterborne vessels prior to the implementa-
tion of Federal MSD regulations. Of these, as seen in Table 3.14 (bottom),
nearly two-thirds (63%) say those laws were more stringent than the current
Federal MSD regulations. Part A of Appendix E presents a summary digest of
State laws pertaining to marine waste disposal as written a decade ago. Part
B of Appendix E presents capsule summaries of State Marine waste disposal laws
as they exist today. Part C presents summary information regarding the marine
sanitation regulation and enforcement program in the Province of Ontario, Canada,
because Ontario's program is widely recognized as being very effective, i.e.,
it achieves a high level of compliance.
The discussions with the State contacts revealed that some of the State
officials may not fully understand that Federal MSD regulations have pre-empted
all State statutes or regulations with respect to the design, manufacture,
installation or use of any MSD as of January 30, 1980. It appears that the
States have generally put their existing laws "in mothballs." Many appear
ready to quickly reinstitute their own laws should the Federal responsibilities
be retracted or eliminated.
When asked whether the State presently plays a role in monitoring and en-
forcing MSD regulations, half of the State contacts described some form of
activity. Of these, about half executed only minimal enforcement programs
which are usually a small part of a broader boating safety program. The re-
mainder are said to be more actively involved in MSD enforcement and most of
these States have formal enforcement powers by reason of having EPA-approved
no-discharge waters.
In spite of the current Federal pre-emption, about one out of four States
is reported (Table 3.15) to be weighing a change in its policy on pleasure
craft sewage disposal. A summary of the reasons given for potential change is
shown in the left column of Table 3.16. As seen in the representative comments
in the column to the right, the State contacts do not cite Federal pre-emption
as an explanation of why their State's position will not change.
"3R Associates, lnc.__
82
-------
TABLE 3.14
EXISTENCE OF STATE LAWS REGULATING SEWAGE DISCHARGE
FROM WATERCRAFT PRIOR TO FEDERAL PREEMPTION
Before the implementation of Federal regulations requiring marine sanitation
devices, did your State have its own laws regulating sewage discharge from
waterborne vessels?
Yes
No
Don't know
State Contacts
(Percentage Base = 49)
82%
18%
0
Were the State's regulations more stringent, less stringent or about the same
as the current Federal MSD regulations? (Asked of those \^ho said "yes" above.)
State Contacts
(Percentage Base = 40)
More stringent
/
63%
About the same
18%
Less stringent
18%
Don't know
2%
Source: Telephone discussions with State personnel regarding
State marine sanitation policies.
83
JRB Associates, Inc.—J
-------
TABLE 3.15
PROBABLE CHANGE IN STATE'S POLICY REGARDING
MARINE SEWAGE DISPOSAL
Do you foresee any change in the State's position regarding the disposal of
sewage from recreational vessels?
Yes
No
Don't know
State Contacts
(Percentage Base = 49)
27%
69
4
Source: Telephone discussions with State personnel regarding
State marine sanitation policies.
84
¦JRB Associates, Inc.—
-------
TABLE 3.16
EXPLANATION OF POSITION REGARDING CHANGE
OF STATE MARINE SEWAGE DISPOSAL POLICY
STATE POSITION WILL CHANGE
• Federal regulations too involved.
• Confusion over types of MSDs
required
• If Federal funds supplied for
pumpout facility construc-
tion
• Other areas of water quality
improving, therefore, ves-
sel sources should also
be controlled
• Enforcement should increase
• Water quality deteriorating
under Federal regulations
• If Federal regulations change
• Protection of drinking water
supplies
• More pumpout facilities
anticipated
• Boaters applying pressure for
compromise
• Maintain continuity with Fed-
eral regulations
STATE POSITION WILL NOT CHANGE
-------
TABLE 3.17
STATE SUPPORT FOR STRICTER COAST GUARD
ENFORCEMENT OF MSD REGULATIONS
To your knowledge, does the State favor or oppose stricter enforcement of Fed-
eral MSD regulations by the Coast Guard?
State Contacts
(Percentage Base = 49)
Favor 45%
Oppose
Neutral
Don't know
Refused
Source: Telephone discussions with State personnel regarding
State marine sanitation policies.
16
86
¦JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
3.6 VIEWS CONCERNING A POSSIBLE CHANGE IN THE FEDERAL ROLE IN MSD REGULATION
That many State contacts are not satisfied with the Federal government's
MSD program is indicated by the fact that nearly half report that their State
favors stricter enforcement by the Coast Guard. This is seen in Table 3.17.
Only 16% express opposition to stricter Coast Guard enforcement. On this
sensitive matter, many (38%) State contacts said the State was neutral (12%)
or they did not give an answer (26%). The reasons why additional Coast Guard
support is either favored or opposed are shown in Table 3.18.
The wide range of opinion among the States concerning Federal MSD regula-
tions is evident in Table 3.19. Thirty percent see the current regulations as
inadequate, 38% find them adequate as they are now, and 15% believe they are
either too stringent or are unnecessary. The remaining 16% gave a variety of
other answers or did not give an answer. This absence of consensus indicates
the need to reexamine the regulations and the Federal role in their enforcement.
According to the collective perception of the State contacts, elimination
of the Federal MSD regulations and the Coast Guard enforcement role would have
little effect on the States. Recalling information reviewed earlier, many
States would appear to welcome the departure of the Federal government. As
shown in Table 3.20, for 73% of the States, it is reported that Federal with-
drawal would not change the State's level of activity (or inactivity) concerning
MSD's. For another 18%, it is believed that the State would pass its own water
quality standards and strictly enforce them. Because the replies from the
State contacts indicate that two-thirds (68% as seen in Table 3.19) of the
States find the MSD regulations are acceptable as they are now or not tough
enough, it appears probable that most States would step in and enforce their
own marine sanitation regulations should the Federal presence be withdrawn for
any reason. Not one State was reported to be unable to mount a viable program
in the absence of Federal enforcement capabilities.
87
JRB Associates, lnr
-------
TABLE 3.18
EXPLANATION OF POSITION REGARDING LEVEL
OF COAST GUARD ENFORCEMENT
FAVOR STRICTER ENFORCEMENT
• Regulations not being adequately
enforced at present by Coast
Guard
• Increasing number of boats in size
classes which require MSDs
• State needs funding support
• Certain waters, e.g., shellfish
beds and drinking water, need
more protection
• State could concentrate on non-
navigable waters, leaving
navigable waters to Coast
Guard
• Enforcement not responsibility
of State
• Equity lacking due to absence
of enforcement
OPPOSE STRICTER ENFORCEMENT
• Boaters have not had adequate
time to comply
• States have not had time to in-
stall pumpout facilities
• Do not want Federal intervention
• State enforcement adequate
• Federal regulations too stringent
for coastal waters
• Stricter enforcement on closed
bodies of water not feasible
due to lack of pumpout
facilities
• Coast Guard not a well-known or
popular entity
• Coast Guard unnecessary because
marine waste disposal not a
big problem
Source: Telephone discussions with State personnel regarding
State marine sanitation policies.
88
•JRB Associates, In
-------
TABLE 3.19
THE STATES' VIEW OF CURRENT FEDERAL MSD REGULATIONS
In your opinion, what is the State government's position concerning the current
Federal MSD regulations. Would you say that the general opinion is that these
regulations are...
State Contacts
(Percentage Base = 49)
Inadequate and should not permit any sewage
discharge from any recreational vessel
Inadequate and should require a higher efflu-
ent standard
Adequate as they are right now
Too stringent and should only require Type I
devices now and in the future
Unnecessary because the need for MSDs has
not been sufficiently proven
Other answers *
Don't know
Refused
24%
6
12
10
4
2
30%
15%
16%
The regulations need clarification; the type of water should be a factor;
the regulations are too inflexible; the location of the waters should be
the determining factor; there are no Federal funds to help boaters comply.
Source: Telephone discussions with State personnel regarding
Statp marine sanitation policies.
89
-JRB Associates, Inc
-------
TABLE 3.20
STATE RESPONSE IF THE FEDERAL MSD REGULATIONS
WERE ELIMINATED
If the Federal regulations regarding MSDs were eliminated, along with the Coast
Guard's role in enforcement, how would the State respond to this situation?
State Contacts
(Percentage Base = 49)
There would be no change in the State's
activity/inactivity regarding MSDs^ 73%
The State would adopt and enforce current
Federal standards 0
The State would pass its own water quality
standards for MSDs and strictly
enforce them 18
The State would be unable to mount a viable
program in the absence of Federal
enforcement capabilities 0
Other answers 2
Don't know 2
Refused 4
As discussed in the text, because most States are viewed as desiring to
enforce marine sanitation regulations at a level equal to or in excess
of the Federal standards, it is probable that for most of the States,
"no change" implies that existing State MSD laws would be reinstituted.
Increase State activity under State regulations.
Source: Telephone discussions with State personnel regarding
State marine sanitation policies.
JRB Associates, Inc.^—
90
-------
APPENDIX A
DISTRIBUTION OF PLEASURE BOATS
IN THE UNITED STATES
JRB Associates, |r"-
-------
TABLE A.1
Stales
REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS AND STATE TOTALS OF REGISTERED CRAFT
Rank
Boats Required To Be Registered 1978 1979 In U.S.
Percent
Change
Alabama
Al
motorboats. sailboats, and rental boats
178,259
180,299
18
+ 1.1
Alas kb
Al
motorboats
31,5031
34.088
40
+8.2
A'izone
Al
wstercra^
£5,811
91,510
31
+6.6
Arkansas
Al
motorboats . . . ...
204.287
226,165
11
+10.7
California
Al
motorboats and sailboats over 8 feet in length . .
548.8 80
562,061
3
+2 4
Colorado
Al
motorboatssnd sailboats
48,617
50,525
35
+3.9
Connect icut
Al
motorboats
67.398
74,266
33
+ 10.2
Delavvsre
Al
motorboats
29,103
30.721
42
+5.6
District of Columbia
Al
watercraft
4.050
3,247
52
-19.8
Florida
Al
motorboats
459,623
480,953
5
+4.6
Georgia
Al
motorboats and sailboats over 1 2'eet in length. . .
189,387
194,755
12
+2.8
Hawaii
Al
motorboats and sailboats over 8 feet in length . . .
13,695
13,678
51
-0.1
Idaho
Al
motorboats
56,6081
58,450
34
+3.3
llhnois
Al
motorboats and sailboats over 1 2 feet in leanth. . .
252,562
258,403
10
+2.3
Indiana
Al
motorboats
163,926
164,589
22
+0.4
Iowa
A!
motorboats
177,761
184.424
14
+3.7
Kansas
Al
motorboats anc sai boats
76,068
76.711
32
+0.8
Keniuc ky
Al
motorboats
108,503
110,174
30
+1.5
Louisiana
A)
moto-boats . .
281,529
274,778
8
-2.4
Maine
Al
motorboats
1 14,403
117.167
27
+2.4
Mary .and
Al
motorboats
131,206
132,536
26
+1.0
Massachusetts
Al
motorboats
172,113
173,834
19
+ 1 .C
Michigan
Al
watercraft
469.321
571,007
1
+21.7
Minnesota
Al
watercraft (with exception]"
541.202
563,850
2
+4.2
Mississippi
Al
motorboats
95,607
110,313
29
+ 15.4
Missouri
Al
moto'boais anc sailboats over \2 feet in length.
1 77.872
181,080
16
+ 1 8
Montana
Al
mctorooats
29.4001
30,776
41
+4 7
Nebraska
Al
motorboats
42.735
41,383
37
3.2
Nev3da
Al
motorboats
24.340
26.754
44
+93
New Hampshire
A1
motorboats
1 6.1 241
15.334
50
4 9
New Jersey
Al
motorboats
1 18.769
114,000
28
1 0
New Mexico
Al
motorboats and sailboats .
37,968
40,469
38
+6 6
New York
Al
motorboats
327.782
321,470
7
1 9
North Carolina
Al
motorboats except boats with e'ectric motors . . .
191.061
191.679
13
+0 3
Noah Dakota
Al
motorboats ...
23,960
28 513
43
+ 19.0
Ohio
Al
watercraft
263,366
260,229
9
-1 2
Oklahoma
Al
watercraft
1 59,546
162,480
23
+ 1.8
Oreoon
Al
motorboats anc sailboats over 1 2 feet in length.
124,069
139,966
25
+12.8
Pennsylvania
Al
motorboats
171.276
171,613
21
+0.2
Rhode Island
Al
motorboats
30,345
20,979
47
—30.9
South Carciina
Al
motorboats
169,365
180,617
17
+6.6
South Dakota
Al
motorboats
28,041
24,397
46
-13.0
i ennessee
Al
moto-boats and sailboats
21 5,292
183,224
15
-14.9
Texas
Al
motcrboats
535,586
545,379
4
+ 1.8
Utah
AH
motorboats and sailboats
41.615
43.556
36
+4.7
Vermont
a;
moiorboats
25.074
25,555
45
+ 1.9
Virginia
Al
motorboats
139.423
140,444
24
+0.7
Washington
At
motorboats
188,723*
172,134
20
-8.8
West Virginia
Al
motorboats .
31,234
34,133
39
+9.3
Wisconsin
a;
motorboats and sailboats over 1 2 feet in length. . .
384,201
404,185
6
+5.2
Wyoming
Al
motorboats
1 5,857
18.262
49
+ 15.2
Guam
Al
motorooats
7073
527
54
-25.5
Puerto Rico
Al
motorboats
17,359
18,288
48
+5.4
Virgins Islands
Al
motorboats
2,294
2,731
53
+ 19.0
American Samoa
Al
moiorboats
99
60
55
-39.4
N Marianas
Al
motorbcats ....
-
2
56
—
TOTALS
8.034,905
8,278,723
+3.0
~ States not having a Coast Guard approved numbering system as of 31 December 1978, and where the Coast Guard has assumed
the numbering authorrty.
^ Estimate
2
Minnesota excludes (a] duckboats during duckhuntmg season, (b) ricebcats during harvest season and (c) seaplanes
3
Guam did not report their 1978 boat numbering data. The figure for 1977 was carried over.
Source: Boating Registration Statistics 1979, National Marine Manufacturers
Association (Marex) , Chicago, II JRB Associates. Inc
A-l
-------
TABLE A.2 PLEASURE BOATS PER ONE THOUSAND STATE POPULATION
a b
1979 Boats 1979 Estimated Boats per
Registered Population (1000) 1000 Population
NEW ENGLAND 427,135 12,290 35
Connecticut 74,266 3,115 24
Maine 117,167 1,097 107
Massachusetts 173,834 5,769 30
New Hampshire 15,334 887 17
Rhode Island 20,979 929 23
Vermont 25,555 493 52
MIDDLE ATLANTIC 1,481,082 60,949 24
Delaware 30,721 582 53
District of Columbia 3,247 656 5
Georgia 194,755 5,117 38
Maryland 132,536 4,148 32
New Jersey 114,000 7,332 16
New York 321,470 17,648 18
North Carolina 191,679 5,606 34
Pennsylvania 171,613 11,731 15
South Carolina 180,617 2,932 62
Virginia 140,444 5,197 27
GULF COAST 1,591,722 32,456 49
Alabama 180,299 3,769 48
Florida 480,953 8,860 54
Louisiana 274,778 4,018 68
Mississippi 110,313 2,429 45
Texas 545,379 13,380 41
EAST CENTRAL 734,776 16,832 44
Arkansas 226,165 2,180 104
Kentucky 110,174 3,527 31
Missouri 181,080 4,867 37
Tennessee 183,224 4,380 42
West Virginia 34,133 1,878 18
aBoating Registration Statistics 1979, National Marine Manufacturers
Association (Marex), Chicago, IL .
^Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1980. 101st Edition,
U.S. Bureau of the Census; Washington, D.C., 1980.
JRB Associates, lnc.__
-------
1979 Boatsa
Registered
1979 Estimated^ Boats per
Population (1000) 1000 Population
GREAT LAKES 2,222,263 45,347 49
Illinois 258,403 11,229 23
Indiana 164,589 5,400 30
Michigan 571,007 9,207 62
Minnesota 563,850 4,060 139
Ohio 260,229 10,731 24
Wisconsin 404,185 4,720 86
WEST COAST 874,161 29,147 30
California 562,061 22,694 25
Oregon 139,966 2,527 55
Washington 172,134 3,926 44
MIDWEST/MOUNTAINS 878,210 21,756 40
Arizona 91,510 2,450 37
Colorado 50,525 2,772 18
Idaho 58,450 905 65
Iowa 184,424 2,902 64
Kansas 76,711 2,369 32
Montana 30,776 786 39
Nebraska 41,383 1,574 26
Nevada 26,754 702 38
New Mexico 40,469 1,241 33
North Dakota 28,513 657 43
Oklahoma 162,480 2,892 56
South Dakota 24,397 689 35
Utah 43,556 1,367 32
Wyoming 18,262 450 41
XON-CONTIGUOUS 69,374 4,937 14
Alaska 34,088 406 84
Hawaii 13,678 915 15
Guam 527 114C 5
Puerto Rico 18,288 3,353C 5
Virgin Islands 2,731 96° 28
American Samoa 60 31 2
North Marianas 2 17C 0.1
c
1978 estimated population. Data from Statistical Abstract of the
United States: 1980.
'RR Associates, Inc.
A-3
-------
APPENDIX B
ENGINEERING STATE OF THE ART
Reproduced from Bertges, W.C., "Recreational
Vessel Waste Pollution," U.S. Coast Guard,
NTIS, Cat. No. AD/A-000 453, 1974.
O'ote: This report was prepared in 1974. "hile it is a good, brief
overview of basic MSD technologies, it does not reflect design
and performance advances that have been made in the last seven
years.)
JRB Associates, Inc.—
-------
TO PICRSIDE FACILITY
TO PtERSIDE
' FACILITY
VENT
RIGID HOLDING
TANK
VENT
STANDARO MARINE
HEAD
FLEXIBLE HOLDING
TANK
CUSTOM FIT
HOLDING TANK
TO PIERSIDE FACILITY
Figure 4-7. Three Holding Tank Configurations With Standard Marina Head.
IRR Associates, Inc.
B-l
-------
utilised. If Che holding tiok location Is rniutr, the u6e of a saall
nacerator will help prevent aojr clogging in tlie connection line.
The Itoldlng tank represents the slaplest fora of reretiilon system;
the larger the holding systrm, the more cooplex It Itfuunfs. Larger
ttoldlng systcas utilize discharge puaps (with or wltlmut a maccrator)
and piping to suitable deck flr-.lngs for punplng isluro, They also
Incorporate • water lloe to flush and clean the taok, an air supply
to prevent the sewage fron going anaerobic, ami a veni line to vent off
the gdses generated In the tank. Because ol corrosion, the tank In
separated fron the vessels structure. Samller vessels may fuvr only a
'*>ld lng tank and . pnd on the dockside tac'llty to pro\'lde the pusping
required. In this case, they need only provide a connection between tlw
toilet and holding tank, a vent tube, and piping to a fsil) -mourned fitting
to provide a staple but cinplete systca.
Typical snail craft holding tank construction Is rigid, often
nade of themnplastlc material. Another popular type Is the flexible
(Hitk made of reinforced fiber materiel. The pr:»«.»i I In# resin is poured. Upon installing and filling rlw inner
b
-------
aooltorcd to ensure agiloit overfill end be puaped out at a shoreslde
facility Mkeo full. This system offers the tull boat owner who already
has ooe or sure heads onboard the ability to connect the existing hrad.s
to a holding tank. However, In addition to the Initial holding tank
vjpenae, the boat owner will be required to purchase fittings and Imscs
necessary to provide head and dockalde connections. These Installation
costs nay ruo to $100 or more.
Two other head-holding configurations are Illustrated In figure
4-6. The head-hotdlng s<*lf-contained unlc provides a removable holding
tank directly beneath the seat of the head. Fresh flush water la also
provided for In fSu lightweight unit whose tank can be disassembled
and carried home jfter a weekend's use for &?tylng loto a shore toilet.
These units range lo cost between $60 and $100. Biological head-
holding uolts range In price between $300 and $500. (This system's
process Is described later In Section 4-5.1.4) Vacuum fluslt system
which uses a special marine head, vacuus pump, and holding tank, use
only 1 to 1-1/2 pints of water per flush. It costs between $500 and
$600 for a one head system.
1.2 RJiClRCULATlNC MSD
Unlike the holding tank *yntcn, tl»e recirculating systcxa doer, not
store the liquid but recirculates it alter proper treatment tor use
again aa the t lushing ncdiua. The solid* arc collected and stored for
later shore disposal. The larger recirculating systems provide several
stages of tceatoent Including alte reduction of solids, odor and color
control, settling, decomposition, and aeration. The smaller systems
RCMOIt RtCIRCUtAltNC MSO
CONVCMTtO HIAO'HCCIMClll AFlKJG MSO
ISIWII AHCONnr.UHATlON AVAIL ASK
WlftKAJT RCCIMClJI ATlNC 'HOViSIONI
IANK
5
i vt 1
stl »4.0N!AINrt> atCmCUtAUNG Ht AO IAO
Figure h-9. three Recirculating MSO Cont iRurjt.Inns lor Small Craft.
-------
Intended primarily for recreational and nail coanerclal and military
vessels use a staple filtering technique, e.g., a filter cartridge, at*J
chealcalw are added manually to control the odor and color of the
recirculated liquid. Figure 4-9 Illustrates three rei ticulatlng toilet
. unt igurotlons that can be used on nail recreational craft*
Two of the configurations uue a standard marine head, which may
already be aboard the craft. In one type, the head(s) Is connected to
a rtanotely located recirculating holding tank. In the other, the
recirculating tank lb Mtted beneath the tank, raising it only 8 to 12
Inches. In this type o( holding tank, a filter, such as a screen or
strainer, Is Interr.ily fitted b»*twv.'ii the Influent discharge ftaa the
tol let .hkI the teturn flushing line. The unit is Initially chared
cfiongh water lor at least a single tull flush. When the pump Is acn.a
the (lushing liquid enters the bowl, cleans It, and transports the
„j^te CO the holding tank. The filterrd tlush liquid Is .lieaitaUy
created to reduce odor anl Improve appear nm-e. The tank In pumped out
i lushed, and recharged In :he same manner as the standard holding tank
The (In i d configuration Is a self-contained head and recirculation unl
When the llusli valve is actuated, the llqwld In the tank circulates
. hrough .i (liter to screen out solids and then throngh a cartridge tlia
,-nlors and dmxlorlzcs the liquid. Instead of a cartridge, liquid or
[jowoer may br added by the batnh net hod. All comer c 1 a 1 aircraft are
lilted with unit* oi this type, and some JOO.OOO have found uses on
campers, trailers, and p leasurec raf t. These units .ire rated for 60
to 8U uaea between charging, have an average coat of $300, and range f
WO to $1000. hmr aiding tank recirculating conversion kits are
available for less than 5100.
VENT FLUE
GAS LINE
gas
IGNITION
ELECTRICAL
LINE
Figure 4-10. Snail Craft Incinerating K*D.
-------
4-i.l.J INCINKEATION/EVAPORATION HSD
Figure 4-10 Illustrates an evaporatIon/InctneratIon type tt»0
for Mil craft. In thl. type of »el tootaloed HSD, flushing liquids
are .lnl.lied or c—plelely precluded. In »oet caaes. paper bowl line s
arc lined for (he cuntalrenent of each sanitary waste discharge. The
means of coabustlon la either by fuel or electricity. In addition, an
a, rivaled carbon filter nay be used to deodorlre the co»huslion ,»s« that
e.cape through the vent. This systen requires occasional Inert .si,
raaoval. This ash can be disposed of In .he sane manner a, other
onboard generated solid waste. Electrical model, require .he .<.*11 h.l.iy
ot 3600 watts of el.-, irlcal power. The average units run In the ShOO
t.lllgc.
Anotlier type :yst« for s=all craf. appllca.lon utilizes thermal
energy to kill the collfun. bacteria and concentrate the waste effluent.
This systesi ha» the same weight and power requlrcnents as the Inr.nerjtun
toilet. Ua cost Is 1'. the 52.000 range.
<,-5.1.4 blOUlT.lCAL MSD
In a biological HSD. the sewage la digested by the bacte.la present
in the waste stream. These bacteria tall Into the aerchlc type .those
that live in the presence of oxygen) and the anaerobir sys.e™ (those
that live only In the absence of free elemental otyRen). In comparison
t„ the aerobic.syste». the anaerobic syste» Cth.se often uwJ for domes,
sewage treatment. I.e.. ..ptlc tanks) require, too great a tank sire and
too long a retention time to effectively digest the waste stream aboard
ship. Thus, the anaerobic syste.S use In a fuarlne shipboard envlronn,.,.!
Z m
-------
DISINFECTION
STORAGE
MACERATOR
MEAD
VENT
INTAKE
DISCHARGE
THRU HULL
W L
SIDE VIEW
Flgjre i-U. SpjI! Lraft -acerator-Olslnfec t Ion, Pf/.lc.l-Ch.nicjl MSD.
3
g
J!
"8
1
*
I
8
J
e «a H
1 a
5 S
2 3
«
e
>
c
;
c
V
•
«
y
c
-
?
y
O.
3.
si
w
u
«
0
¦3
i.
£
0
y
C
o
«9
O
1
«
s.
M
s
«
a
¥
i
£
c
a
y
V
Tl
0
1
u
i
0
¦
a
«
u
m
•
1
y
V
¦a
o
w
u
S
¦
\
I
V
a
w
1
•J
0
u
|
1
y
J
A
0
y
«
0
w
eC
«
2
y
a
«
a
2
<«
a
•
VM
«
•
e
$
o
S
•
•
T|
3
a
a
M
V
a
w
a
¦
i
0
S
a
a
&
i
u
1
»
9
it
•*
«
«
a
: I j g
o **
0 T
¦g
s a s.
I \ t
« w
1 ' -
S « a
£ a a
c r -
* = 2
j i ;
» -i ?
— B •
1 ? !
w y
w -o
2 1
* ' 1
a "g 5
I a a
U w
1
M
y
U
¦
t
a
3 5
I >
a s
• s
i %
i 1
a „
— o
0
2 1
U W
. a
— 3
m y
8 u
3 «
W
1 a
= 1
S 2 1-
s a
•9
S ,
*d u
2 1
m y
! 5
u
S 5
9
»* 3
a £
• »
a a-
s i
3 I
a. o •
vT •
5 •= -
. 2 t
1
0 «*
8 .
• 2
>» w
«l 0
a a
- r 5
*3 &
a
i
!
V)
>
i
y _
J 5
a |
i s
s a a
a
c a —
« •
a 2 ^
. JRB Associates, Inc.
B-6
-------
fr<* tte dlalofectloo atorage ressrvolr Into tbt dlilofcctlflg i«ak.
Tbe waate .lurry ta retained for sufficient tlam to c«e in contact with
thr dlslnfact lac agent before being discharged (Figure 4-12). It la
necessary to saint. In a disinfection residual In order to ««"« sdequate
collform kill. Due o current and pending regulatloo, many Mcerator-
d lsloiectlon F6D manufacturer have ceased production since thrlr products
caunot produce ao effluent of proper quality consistently. These
systmu coat $100 to $200 and welgb 20 to 40 pounds.
A unique wall craft macerstlon-dlalofection syita utilizes a
patented microwave principle In the disinfection tank Instead of a
disinfection agent. Different from uther macerstlon-dlslnfectlon equipment.
tbla lytta filters any fine «iapend«d particlea fr« the sterilized liquid
prior to the discharge or recirculation of the effluent. Effluent results
of 50 to 0 blo-chemlcal oxygen demand(BOD), 50 to 0 suspended solids (SS).
and le.is thao 8 totsl colifom cwint per 100 ml have been schelved.
However, this syst» costs $750 and requires the availability of
1000 to 1500 watts at 105 to 125 VAC, -Ingle phase. The unit weighs
75 pounds dry/150 pounds wet and fits Into s 3-1/4 cubic foot spsce.
4-6.1 SUITABILITY OP >60 SYSTDtS
The advantages and disadvantages for those MSD ayetas descrlbt-d In
ths previous sactloo are proaancad In thla section. The advantages and
dlsadvsncsgaa ars based on currant cc^perclally available >CD systems os
they apply to recreational vessels.
4-6.1.1 HOLDING TANK KSD
ADVMTACKS
(1) Hanufactured In various shapea and sized. Including a Mexllile
form configuration, to provide the required holding rapacity
within the wpace limitations of the vessel.
(2) Simple construction requires olnlaal maintenance.
(3) Smaller holding tanks are portable for easy offlosdlng by the
bost owner.
(4) Lowest Initial cost of sll MSD systeas.
DISADVANTAGES
(1) There are very few shore reception facilities to discharge
stored sewsge.
(2) Holding tsnk size becaes prohibitive If the vrnael la to
reaaln at sea for more than a few days.
(3) It the tank la not properly aerated, anaerobic digestion nay
take place resulting In objectlonahlr gotten. The strong
perfume scent of the chemical odor suppressant commonly addrd
to the hold log tank alao creates a malodous problem.
(4) Low Initial cost may be offnet by higher pumpout and disposal
service coata.
-------
(S) Nany of these devices do not have provisions to adequately
flush out their sol Ids fro* the hold Ion taok after pumpnut.
(o) The strong bloc Ides often sdded to the holding tanks sake
their puapout discharge very to«lc to municipal biological
treatment plant,. To prevent upsetting the ahoreslde treaaent
plant, these discharges »ist not consist of aore than a few
percent ot the total municipal s~»ge reaching the facility.
(7) Ury "t lus.i" toilets luive often been prone to a*chanlcal failure,
leaks. and oJurs. Uispor^l of the pastes Into normal "olid
uasle recept.i. les may be locally prohibited.
jt I tArt 11.f i r
IKi Id i :,e, lark sys.e»s are physl.ally suitable for all types of
r i'i* t c.it i jn j 1 vessels. and for I he most pair, appear to be
¦nationally suitable for moat recreational vessels.
KIXIKITLATIM- MiO
MIVA*. I A .I S
,1) ui.n.i UK- length ot lime a vessel .an operate In waters -here
overtioaid discharge IS prohibited a, re»pared tn holding taok
syMeni* <>i c lie s.tmc capacity.
»„•„ tallied n.ius are more n.pac .nan holding lank systeos.
, |, n l .i . n.-;1 un.ts will i It In almost the same site
.. j, -. e ,s .i 11 i*.iJ v prov iili'il for the si .ndard marine heads.
,i) Suae rec1rcula I lug systems .an be used In ron)unctlon -Ith
eitst inK maiIne heads.
l„ ^.„mal model'. are available. Al-.o. electric pouer ed models can
l„. nper.11 e.l l .... primary OT power on re. real tonal vessel..
DISADVANTAGES
Difficulty in controlling the discoloration and odor level of
the recirculated liquid.
For a Larger systea, dally maintenance Is required to tranjfer
solids to storage tanks, tn test recirculated water for alkalinity
level, and to resupply chealcsls.
Requires puspout at shore reception facility, lit hough not as
often as wlti. a holding taok systea.
Greater number of ¦rctunlcsl parts than holding tank nystean .ind
•ay require norc salutciunfi*, repair, and replacement of parts.
Initial costs ot rec 1 rculat Inn systems are higher than holding
tank systtas. Operational costo are also estlaated to be
higher because of the cost of chcalcnls.
SUITABILITY
Recirculating nyatan, because they require less storage space
fur liquids, are sore coapact than holding tank systeas and will
generally require less spare onboard the vessel, but their
greatest advantage Is in the fact that a vessel can operate lor
a longer period of .lac In navigable waters without returning
to slure lor puapout. The odor problua aay be objertlonahlr on
hooj vessels, but undoubtedly this problem will he ellolnnlrd
by continued research and testing on these syntrnA. The overall
t'luracter 1st lea of recirculation systeos iwkc there w«>l 1-sulted
for recreational vessels.
-------
4-6.1.3 INCINERATION/EVAPORATION HSD
ADVANTAGES
(1) locloerator systems do nuC require sboreolde pumpout.
(2) Can Hcronodite greater loading w111 unit taking up acre space.
(j) Utilizes les ; flush water than oil* systems.
(4) Inert ash Iron n.. 4 .erat ion can be easily dlbposed of ay solid w
DISADVANTAGES
(1) Requites fuel oil, ptopane gas. natrujl gJ6t electric power
tor Incineration process.
(?) Kvapor«it Ion sysiim require nhoreslde ptimpout .
(3) Inc Incrat Ion process may bo a potential Itazard to crew anJ vesse
(M I m imp lei c combust ion nuy cause an odor ptol.lrm.
('») Initial unii costs an- higher than other systems and may tequire
additional shipboard equ ipmerit . e.£., marine generator, ta
provide puwi for Inc itierator . Operational cost lot luel is
also relatively high.
.-¦uiiAimnY
Tni incratlon/Evapotat ion systems unfor mn.it rly arc the least
suitable tor recreational vessels since most do not have
but'tli uni electric power to operate even the smaller Incincratoi
Mrif inc generators «.ould be installed on some reireational vf.sel
but t tie tost would be prohibitive to most boat owners. Kuel oil
or propane gas could be used for int Jtw-ral m«*, b'»t it 1 ould be
eiliaiely dangerous on a recreational vessel.
ADVANTAGES
(1) Sent sysiens can be connected to existing marine heads.
(2) Smaller system* for recreational vessels do not require electric
power.
(3) Small systoss are sclf-malntalnlog, requiring ooly the dally
Addition of a 5aa«*ll amount of chemicals.
(4) Larger systems ran produce a high quality effluent which can
meet I he EPA water quality standards.
DISADVANTAGES
(1) Bacteria colonies arc often destroyed by the Intinductlou nf oil
acldo, cleaners, etc.
(2) Large systms require considerable maintenance because of aliulge
buildup, flu- veuslt Ivity of tlw bacteria colony, and the require
vent for frequent cleaning to 3void objectionable odors.
(3) Affluent water quality Is not constant and must be sampled or
ccon i tured 1requentIy.
(4) :»ome systems are sea-state sensitive, and the blologlc.il systra
w.11 not perform properly If there Is much vessel motion.
SUITABILITY
The smaller (nont Iow-through) systems may be Ailtable for
tecre.il lona 1 vessel*- provided tliey are properly vented.
4-6.1.* PMYSlCAL-CHtMlCAL 1SD
ADVANTACKS
(1) Scree syutcBs can be conblned with standard marine heads.
(?) Syst«sa tan operate with salt or fresh water flushing.
(J) Steady loading is n^t required.
-------
PISADVAWTJIfiFS
<1) Water quality effluent aay be Inconsistent.
(?) Ulgl, rcaldual chlorine level (requlrol In order to attain
adequate collfora bacteria klll)ia a pollutant.
(3) Nay require conalderable aalnteunce tlae.
(4) May generate objectionable odora.
SUITABILITY
Only the »»l|Cr ay.taa that .acerate and dlolnfect the acwag,
for atorage and dlacohrge are aultable for the recreational
veseel. However, aoat of these ayatena Mere designed aa flow-
through devices, and a. «,ch. will offer no advantage over the
other syateaa If the effluent la not discharged overboard but
rccjlncd io holding laoki.
-------
APPENDIX C
METHODOLOGY TO DETERMINE THE TOTAL COST
OF THE FEDERAL MSD REGULATION
. JRB Associates, Ins..
-------
APPENDIX C
METHODOLOGY TO DETERMINE THE TOTAL COST
OF THE FEDERAL MSD REGULATION
The cost of Federal MSD regulation includes the unit purchase price, in-
stallation, and annual costs necessary to operate and maintain marine sanitation
devices. This analysis calculates the total compliance costs by determining the
number of boats in various size classifications that will be affected by the
regulations. Only vessels with toilets that have not complied with MSD regula-
tions prior to January 1977 (the effective date of the Federal MSD regulation)
and vessels that have been built since January 1977 are considered in the
analysis. The methodology used to calculate total cost (TC) is as follows:
(1) Calculate the number of existing boats that were not in
compliance with MSD regulations prior to January 1977 (EB);
(2) Calculate the number of boats with heads that were retired (RB) due
to age, deterioration, accidents, etc. over the 1977-1979 period;
Calculate the number of boats that were manufactured with
toilets installed (NB) over the 1977-1979 period.
(3) Calculate the total number of boats (TB) that were required to
install MSD's over the 1977-1979 period:
TB = EB + NB - RB;
(4) Calculate the total compliance costs per boat (CB);
(5) Calculate the costs of the Federal MSD regulation if all affected
boats had complied (TC); and
(6) Evaluate precision of methodology and calculations. •*-
Application of the above methodology, including step 6, resulted in calcu-
lation of upper and lower bound estimates for factors related to the number of
boats affected (impacted) by current Federal MSD regulations. The upper and
lower bound approach was deemed necessary because two key parameters could not
be satisfactorily estimated. These parameters are: (1) the proportion of
boats with installed toilets that would be converted to portable toilets only;
and (2) the proportion of boats not in compliance (by virtue of existing State
''"The decision to use this methodology was made after a close review of previous
studies including the 1967 report to the Congress, "Wastes from Watercraft" (110).
'HR Associates, lr"~
C-l
-------
programs) with Federal regulations when they first became effective in
January 1977. Where these parameters impact calculations, two numbers (a high
and a low value) appear in the related table cells.
The techniques used to calculate each of the components is set out below.
Table C.l provides some useful aggregate background statistics on registered
power boats by size class and over time. Actual statistics utilized for cal-
culation purposes frequently involved more disaggregated statistics (e.g., by
state and size class). These more detailed statistics and associated calcula-
tions are available on request.
C.l CALCULATE THE NUMBER OF BOATS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH MSP REGULATIONS
PRIOR TO JANUARY 1977 (EB)
The determination of the number of boats not in compliance with MSD regu-
lations is based on a 1976 market analysis performed by Mansfield Sanitary, Inc.
Boat registration data were used as the best estimate of the total number of
recreational vessels (inboard and outboard) in each State.—^ The initial cal-
culations were performed at the State level by size class according to the
methodology outlined in Figure C.l, and then size class totals were summed for
a national estimate of the number of boats not in compliance with MSD regula-
tions. The following steps were used in the calculations:
• State boat registration statistics for the end of year
(1976) were acquired for use as the base data
• The total number of boats with toilets was calculated by
multiplying the number of registered boats by the toilet
factor associated with boats of various size classifications
• Estimates of the number of boats in compliance were calculated
• Estimates of the number of boats not in compliance in January
of 1977 were calculated (EB).
C.2 CALCULATE THE NUMBER OF BOATS WITH TOILETS BUILT AFTER 1977 (NB) AND
BOAT ATTRITION OVER THE 1977 TO 1979 PERIOD (RB)
The number of boats with toilets that were built after January 1977 and
are less than 65 feet in length are determined as follows:
— Boat Registration Statistics 1979, National Marine Manufacturers Association
(Marex), Chicago, IL.
'HR Associates, Inc.
C-2
-------
TABLE C.l
TOTAL REGISTERED CRAFT BY LENGTH - 5 YEARS*
Length
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1979 %
16'-26
2,087,557
2,216,829
2,482,065
2,597,548
2,699,468
3.5%
26-40'
178,812
185,721
198,057
207,032
213,649
3
401-65'
20,966
21,630
24,407
26,823
27,478
-
Total 16'-651
2,287,335
2,424,180
2,704,529
2,831,403
2,940,595
38
Change
-
136,845
280,449
126,874
109,192
49
% Change
-
6%
12%
5%
4%
133
Under 16'
4,360,235
4,347,934
4,742,486
4,663,772
4,775,283
62
Over 65'
1,104
1,351
1,526
1,728
1,855
-
16'and 65'
4,361,339
4,349,285
4,477,012
4,665,500
4,777,138
62
Change
-
(12,054)
394,727
(78,512)
111,638
51
% Change
-
-
9%
(2%)
2%
67
Total Boats
6,648,674
6,773,465
7,448,541
7,496,903
7,717,733
100
Change
-
124,791
675,076
48,362
220,830
100
% Change
-
21
10%
1%
3%
100
Source: Adapted from National Marine Manufacturers Association, Boating Registration
Statistics, 1979, Table IV, page 8.
( ) = negative number
*Includes inboard and outboard motor boats only. These numbers exclude boats without
engines, buL most of these are not of interest for purposes of current MSD regulations.
-------
FIGURE C.l. OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY TO DETERMINE BOATS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH MSD REGULATIONS
PRIOR TO JANUARY 1977
CI ass/Size
// Registered
Boatsa
Toilet
Factors
// Boats
with Toilets
State
Compliance Factor1"
P Boats Complied/
Noncomplied
I (161-26') :
X
X
0.228b,
0.200b'
0.0456
X
II (26'-40') :
X
X
0.830 bt
0. 800b
X
0.664
.
III (40'-64') :
X
0.823b
X
=
number of inboard and outboard boats registered by the various states. Boating Registration Statistics,
J1979, National Marine Manufacturers Association (Mnrex), Chicago, IL. '
Percent of the total number of registered boats in each size class which have permanent toilet facilities.
The toilet factor is based on data presented in Bertgcs, W.C., Recreational Vessel Waste Pollution
U.S. Coast Guard, NTIS #AT>/A-000-453, -Tune, 1974. L
The assumption that 80 to 20 percent of the Class I and II boats with toilets would avoid the Regulation by
installing portable toilets (portable percentage conversion factors) were provided by an industry representative
CF = Compliance Factor (i.e., percent of boats estimated to be in compliance with State discharge regulations).
Compliance factors were obtained from a 1976 market analysis by Mansfield Sanitary, Inc.
NCF = Compliance Factor (i.e., percent of boats estimated to be in noncompliance with State discharge regula-
tions) prior to 1977 = 1.00 - CF.
-------
• Compute the total number of boats (TNB) sold over the
1977-1979 period.^/
• Calculate the change in the boat stock (ABS) over the
1977-1979 period, i.e., the difference between the number
of registered boats in 1979 and 1976.2/
• Calculate the attrition rate (AR) or the rate at which
boats were retired over the 1977-1979 period. By definition,
the change in the boat stock (ABS) is the total number of
new boats minus the number of boats retired:
ABS = TNB - (AR x EB)
where
TNB = the total number of boats sold over the 1977-1979
period, and
EB = the number of registered boats at the end of 1976.—''
" TNB - ABS
• ¦ "*¦ eb
• Calculate the number of boats with toilets in the various
size classes that are lost through attrition over the
period. This is equal to the number of boats with toilets
by size class "i" existing at the end of 197 6 (EB^) that
have not complied multiplied by the attrition rate, i.e.:
RB = AR x EB.
i i
3
RB = AR Z EB.
i=l 1
• Calculate the number of boats with toilets (NB) by size
class built after 1977, assuming the attrition rate (AR)
to be constant over vessels of different sizes. The
number of boats with toilets built after 1977 is equal
to the change in the stock of boats with toilets (ABS)
plus the number of boats with toilets lost through
attrition
NB. = ABS. + (AR x EB.)
ii l
— The annual sales of boats over the 1977-1979 period were obtained from a
publication called Boat and Motor Dealer , Statistics and Research Depart-"
ment, December 1979.
2/
— See Table C.l. The numeric attrition rate determined over the three year
period was 0.045.
IRR Aecrviatpc Inc.
C-5
-------
3
NB = E ABS + RB
i=l 1
C.3 CALCULATE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF BOATS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL
REGULATION (TB)
Table C.2 below provides the results and summarizes the steps taken to
calculate the total number of boats required to comply with the Federal MSD
regulation.
TB = EB + NB - RB
C.4 CALCULATE THE TOTAL COMPLIANCE COST PER BOAT (CB)
The average compliance cost per boat is equal to the average total invest-
ment for purchase and installation and the annual costs necessary to operate
and maintain the device in the average boat. The data used to determine these
costs were derived from industry statistics and from primary data obtained
from marinas in the Washington, D.C. area. Data include the average purchase
prices of typical Type I MSDs, labor rates, and the costs of materials used to
install MSDs. Information on the purchase price of three common MSDs and their
labor rates are provided in Table C.3. The costs for materials used to install
MSDs are shown in Table C.4.
Using the data provided above, the average total investment compliance
cost per boat was computed. It is estimated that the investment cost per boat
between 16' - 40' would be approximately $800. Generally, larger boats have
more than one toilet and therefore would require a larger investment. The
average investment cost of a boat between 40' - 65' in length was computed to
be approximately $1,400. This figure was computed by multiplying $800 by the
average number of toilets in boats of that size class.—'' The data on the
Type II MSD are based on a similar analysis of the average selling prices and
installation costs of these devices. Annual operating and maintenance costs
are based on discussions with an industry marketing representative. It is
— A boat in the 40' - 65' size class is estimated to have an average of 1.75
toilets, based on conversations with government and other personnel
knowledgeable in the area.
C-6
JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
TABLE C.2
ANALYSIS OF THE NUMBER OF BOATS REQUIRED
TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL MSD REGULATIONS
Boat
Size
Class
No. of Boats
with toilets
prior to 1977
(EB)
No. of Boats
with toilets
built 1977 -
1979 (NB)
No. of Boats
Lost Through
Attrition
1977-1979 (RB)
Total No.
of Boats
with Toilets
(TB)
16' - 26'*
47,627
24, 172
2,164
69,635
238,133
120,862
10,819
348,176
26' - 40'*
77,242
22,054
3,510
95,786
96,553
27,567
4,387
119,733
40' - 65'
10,409
5,299
473
15,235
TOTAL
135,278
51,525
6,147
180,656
BOATS *
345,095
153,728
15,679
483,144
*P.efer to page C-l for an explanation of the upper and lower bound estimates
in the cells of these rows.
IRR Associates, |nf~
C-7
-------
TABLE C.3
AVERAGE MSDs COSTS AND MARINA'S LABOR RATES FOR TYPE I MSD
MARINA
TDX
TDX-S
LECTRA-SAN
LABOR RATES
(PER HOUR)
Anacostia Marina
$ 600
$ 500
"5 595
$ 18
Anchor Yacht Basin Inc.
550
500
500
20
Hartage Yacht
500
500
500
25
Port Annapolis Yacht*
1000
1000
1000
—
Washington Marina Co.
595
499
495
N/A
*Total investment cost per boat. These costs include the price of the MSD
and installation charges.
TABLE C.4
AVERAGE COSTS OF INSTALLATION
ITEMS
COSTS
Labor
$ 160
Hoses
45
Y Valve
30
Other materials
30
Total
$ 265
'RR Associates, lnc.__
C-8
-------
assumed that boats containing Type III devices will be required to pumpout
their tank at least eight times a year, and the cost of each pump-out would
be $4.00. (Actual pump-out costs are understood to range from $0.25 to $10
or more.)
C.5 CALCULATE THE TOTAL COMPLIANCE COSTS OF THE FEDERAL MSP REGULATION
The total compliance costs of the Federal MSD regulation are calculated
by further disaggregating the number of boats according to the specific MSD
regulations of the states. These State MSD regulations fall into two categor-
ies: (1) states which allow discharges from watercraft, and (2) states which
do not allow discharges from watercraft. The number of boats in each category
is shown in Table C.5. These results are based on the number of boats in each
state and the 1976 status of the State laws (shown in Table C.6). The results
in the last two columns of Table C.5 (i.e.. the total number of boats in no-
discharge and treatment/discharge areas) are then multiplied by the appropriate
device investment cost and two years of annual compliance cost to determine
the total costs of the Federal MSD regulation.
The information used to compute the costs of the policy alternatives are
the total number of boats affected by the regulation, boats built over the
1977-1979 period, and the per-unit investment and annual costs of the specific
MSDs that correspond to the regulation.
C.6 PRECISION OF METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATIONS
The high and low estimates of number of boats affected by Federal regula-
tions presented in Table C.2 and C.5 vary depending only on whether or not the
portable percentage conversion factors (b' of Figure C.l) are applied. The
initial calculations for draft versions of this report did not include these
conversion factors and therefore resulted in the high estimates shown. Review
of draft reports suggested that the conversion of boats with installed toilets
to portable facilities only (thus avoiding the regulations) was a phenomenon
that had to be accounted for, but no agreement or data exist on the extent to
C-9
JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
TABLE C.5
ANALYSIS OF BOATS THAT NEED TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL REGULATIONS
BY DISCHARGE AND NO DISCHARGE AREAS PRIOR TO 30 JANUARY 1980
SIZE CLASS
it Boats Not
in Compliance
Prior to 1977
it Boats Built
1977-1979
It Boats Lost Through
Attrition (1977-79)
Total Number of
Boats Needed to Comply
Prior to Jan. 30, 1980
No Disc.
State
Treat/
Disc. State
No Disc.
State
Treat/
Disc. State
No Disc.
State
Treat/
Disc. State
No Disc.
State
Treat/
Disc. State
16' - 26' *
14,891
74,452
32,736
163,681
7,557
37,787
16,615
83,075
677
3,383
1,487
7,437
21,771
108,856
47,864
239,319
26' - 40' "
18,515
23,144
58,727
73,409
5,287
6,608
16,767
20,959
842
1,052
2,668
3,335
22,960
28,700
72,826
91,033
40' - 65'
2,598
7,811
1,323
3,976
118
355
3,803
11,432
TOTAL BOATS *
36,004
100,194
99,274
244,901
14,167
45,718
37,358
108,010
1,637
11,127
4,510
11,127
48,534
141,359
132,122
341,784
*Refer to page C-l for an explanation of the. upper and lower bound estimates in the. cells of these rows.
-------
TABLE C. 6
BOATS IN COMPLIANCE BY STATE 1976
State Compliance Factor
State Discharge Regulation % Boats Complied % Boats Noncomplied
Ala.
Treated Discharge
50
50
Alaska
No Law
10
90
Ariz.
No Discharge
90
10
Ark.
Treated Discharge
90
10
Calif.
No Discharge
25
75
Col.
No Discharge
90
10
Conn.
No Law
10
90
Del.
No Law
10
90
D.C.
No Law
10
90
Fla.
No Law
10
90
Ga.
Treated Discharge
90
10
Hawaii
Treated Discharge
50
50
Idaho
No Law
10
90
111.
No Discharge
90
10
Ind.
Treated Discharge
90
10
Iowa
No Law
10
90
Kansas
Treated Discharge
90
10
Ken.
Treated Discharge
90
10
La.
Treated Discharge
50
50
Maine
No Law
20
80
Md.
Treated Discharge
50
50
Mass.
No Law
10
90
Mich.
No Discharge
90
10
Minn.
No Discharge
90
10
Miss.
No Law
10
90
Mo.
No Discharge
70
30
Mont.
Treated Discharge
50
50
Neb.
Treated Discharge
90
10
Nev.
Treated Discharge
80
20
New Hamp.
No Discharge
90
10
N.J.
No Law
20
80
N.M.
No Discharge
10
90
N.Y.
No Discharge
60
40
N.C.
Treated Discharge
90
10
N.C.
Treated Discharge
80
20
Ohio
No Discharge
70
30
Okla.
Treated Discharge
80
20
Ore.
Treated Discharge
80
20
Penn.
No Law
10
90
R.I.
No Law
10
90
S.C.
No Law
10
90
C-ll
JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
TABLE C.6 (continued)
State Compliance Factor
State Discharge Regulation % Boats Complied % Boats Noncomplied
S.D.
Treated Discharge
90
10
Tenn.
Treated Discharge
80
20
Texas
No Discharge
50
50
Utah
Treated Discharge
50
50
Ver.
No Discharge
90
10
Va.
No Law
10
90
Wash.
No Law
10
90
West Va.
No Law
10
90
Wise.
No Discharge
90
10
Wyoming
No Law
10
90
Adapted from Mansfield Sanitary, Inc., Market Analysis (1976), as
revised by data from Exhibit C.l after consultation with the authors.
Original Mansfield Sanitary table was based on judgment exercise
after a review of relevant laws and other factors.
C-12
JRB Associates, Inc.^—
-------
EXHIBIT C.l
SUMMARY OF STATE LAWS GOVERNING WATERCRAFT WASTE DISPOSAL
(Reprinted with permission of The Boating Industry Associations)
KINDS OF RESTRICTIONS: TOILET MAY BE USED PROVIDEO IT IS EQUIPPED WITH—
RESTRICTIONS
ON BOAT TOILET
EFFLUENT
DISPOSAL
Toilet must be
sealed or ren-
dered inoperable,
if il permits
overboard
Tank
that retains
waste for
shoreside
Device
that properly
treats effluent
before discharge
STATE APPROVAL
REQUIRED FOR
BOAT TOILET
POLLUTION
CONTROL DEVICES
STATE AGENCY
IN CHARGE
OF APPROVALS
ALABAMA
X
X
X
X
X
State Board of Health &
Dir. ol Conservation
Montgomery. Alabama
ARIZONA
X
X
X
X
Slate Dept ol
Health. Phoer.lx, AZ
ARKANSAS
X
X
X
X
X
Bureau of Environmental
Engineering. State Board
ol Health. Little Rock. AK
CALIFORNIA(l)
X
(2)
X
COLORADO
X
X
X
X
CONNECTICUT^)
. X
X
GEORGIA
X
X
X
X
• • -
Water Ouallty Control Board
47 Trinity Ave. S.W.
Atlanta. Georqla
HAWAII
X
X
X
X
None
approved
¦ -
Department of Health
' • Honolulu. Hawaii
ILLINOIS
X
' X
X
' X
Except macerator
cnlorlnator
not permitted
X
J' '
INDIANA
X
X
X .
X
X
Stream Pollution Control
Board, Indianapolis, Ind.
KANSAS
X
X
Not to be enforced
until State Health
Dept. determines
there are adequate
statewide purr.pout
facilities
:*¦
.• / X
. _/
KENTUCKY
X
X
X
X
X
x
¦
Water Pollution Control
Comm., Frankfort, Kentucky
LOUISIANA • C-
X
X
X
Extended
Aeration
+C/2 "*
Although
evidence ol
performance
required
MAIKE
X
On Inland waters
X
MARYLAND ..
Prohibits discharge of
sewage from vessels while
moored, berthed or docked In
slate waters except through
a federally approved
marine sanitation device.
Not
effective
until .
federal
law takes
effect.
. '• "V " : ^
MASSACHUSETTS(4)
X
X
MICHIGAN
X
X(S)
X
X
MINNESOTA
X
X
X
Permitted until '76
on boats having
treatment devices
prior to 6/7/71
X
Water Pollution
Control Comm. .
State Board of Health
St. Paul, Minnesota
MISSOURI(6)
X
X(7)
X
X(0)
X
Water Pollution Board
State Dept. of Public
Health, Jefferson City, MO
MONTANA
X
X
X
X
X
NEBRASKA
X
X
X
X
X
-
NEVADA
X
On certain
waters
On certain
waters
On certain
waters
X
NEW HAMPSHIRE
X
X(9j
i
NEW JERSEY
X
On certain lakes
X
NEW MEXICO
X
On state park waters
X
NEW YORK
X
X
X(10)
X
X
Dept. of Environmental
Conservation, Albany, N.Y.
NORTH CAROLINA
X
On inland
fishing
waters
On Inland
fishing
waters
On Inland
fishing
waters
x
Sanllary Engineering Dlv.
State Board of Health
Ralelqh. N.C.
NORTH DAKOTA
X
X
X
X
X
State Dept. of Health
Bismarck, North Dakota
OHIO
X
X
X
State EPA, Columbus, OH
OKLAHOMA
X
On certain
public
reservoirs
On certain
public
rese'vclrs
On certain
public
reservoirs
On certain
public
reservoirs
X
State Dept. of Health
3400 N. Eastern
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
OREGON
X
On
certain
lates
When shoreside
servicing capability
_ls established
None
approved
yet
State Sanitary Authority
State Board of Health
Salem, Orecon
SOUTH CAROLINA(H)
X
X
SOUTH DAKOTA
X
X
X
X
X
Slate Health Dept.
Pierre. S.D.
TENNESSEE
X
X
X
X
X
Stream Pollution Board
Dept. of Public Health
Nashville. Tenn.
TEXAS
X
Other devices are acceptable locally provided local neaith authority consults
with State Board o( Healtn
X X
UTAH
X
X
X
State Dept. of Health
Salt Lake City, UT
VERMONT
X
X(12|
X
X
VIRGI Nl A( 13)
X
X
X
OK, provided
Installed prior to
3/1/73 and meets
federal standards
X
Water Control Board
Richmond, VA
WISCONSIN
X
X
X
X
WY0MIN3(1«)
X
X
FOOTNOTES: (1) In the irterest cf uniform ty. State requirements are the same as Federal Until Federal preempt.on Iccal governments retair the ngit tc proh bit discharge into waters withm their jjr.s-
d-ciion (2) The Federal EPA h^s aparosd no discharge appl:cat ons for jpper and "ov/er Ne/oor: Bays. Sunset B?y inland of the Dacific Coast Migh\vay bridge, ard Hjntmglon Harbor (3) The discnaige of
raw se.vage garage, rubbish or deans motoiooats o* vessels into waters cf the state is prohibited (4) A 15/D Is.v provides fo- the aaoption ol regulst ons tc ccr.rci or oievent the dischjrge of sewage,
garbage cr otne* .vaste nater.al frcn v/ate.'craft There is no direction as to what k nd c' relations these should be. a Ihcjgn »! v/culd appear tron ether legislation adopted at the s:-ne time rejur ng
mamas to be licensed by tie 0 vision of Water Pol ution Control and to orcvide pomp-out faol t es ?cr vessel ncld ng :a.*ks thit the egis ators lean loward total retention and shoreside disposal To date,
he lav/ has net been i.t pleirented '.*i fact, the effective date has already been oostt jned o^ce. tc f»'ay 15 19/2. and now "here is "ej/'S olior pending to put it off for anciher two years (5) The Federal EPA
has app'C-ved a statewide nc disciai^e application This erconipasses the G'®at Lakes, their connecting waterways 3~«d a I inland l3-.es. (6) Does not aoply to beats engaged m interstate commerce or tne
Misscjr anc Mississippi •' vers. (7) Tie Federal EPA nas app-oved a no discharge application for al waters of the sHte except the M¦ ssiss¦ pp• ;nd Missouri rivers anc a major pel on c* BjH Shoals Lake
along tne MissDun-Arkar.sas border (8) ?.e'et to (7). (9) The Feceia EaA has approved a no discharge application *:r n and waters ol tne sl?te (10) T^e Federal EPA has ajproved a nc cis;harge apph-
cat on lor Lake George (11) Vessels with eat n^ a^d s'eepmg facilities operated or mlard lakes are requced to have toilet facrities of a t/pe aoproved by the State Board of Health (1?) The Federal EPA
has app-'oved a no cis:ha-£e application lor waters cf th s state mclud ng Lake Champ am and Lake McmDhiemagog (13) Sewage tieatnent facilities aboaid out-of-state cr foreign vessels are acceptable
if approved b; the 3porcori:t= agenc/ m tne vessel's hene junscicton. (14) There is no state law governing sewage d soosal frcn boats, but one cr two towrs. m cooperation with t.ne State Health Dept..
have established regulations against discharge irto t.neir waters. NOTE: Only those states with restrictions are included in this listing. For a complete summary, contact the BIA.
Source: Marketing Bulletin from Thetford Corporation.
C-13
Reproduced from
best available copy.
-------
which conversions occur. The factors utilized to determine the low estimates
shown in Tables C.2 and C.5 (80% for 16' - 26' boats and 20% for 26' - 40'
boats) represents maximum conversion rates. However, most knowledgeable
reviewers believe the 80% rate to be too high.
Review of draft reports also raised questions about the adequacy of State
level compliance rates in 1976 (Table C.6). The consensus was that the rates
appeared too high overall. These rates average (weighted) just under 50%,
but many people believe current compliance is only 25%. Again, no nationally
protectable data could be located.
For these reasons and because of the more general problem of limited data
availability necessitating a corresponding large number of assumptions, it was
desirable to identify a separate, independent basis for judging the reasonable-
ness of the final estimation of number of boats affected by MSD regulations.
A recent study by the State of Oregon provides such a basis. The raw data
provided by Oregon is presented in Exhibit C.2; a more structured presentation
of the same data is contained in Exhibit C.3. No breakdown of the data by
boat length could be obtained in time for this report. Neither was any
information available on whether or not the Oregon data were adjusted for
nonresponse bias. Finally, no assumptions can be made with respect to repre-
sentativeness of the survey for purposes of national level estimation. In
spite of these limitations, some comparisons and an observation are useful.
• In Table C.2 it was estimated that between 181,000 and
483,000 boats, that either did not exist in 1976 or did
not have MSDs, should have had approved MSDs by January
1980. Using the Oregon figure of 7% of total (all lengths
registered) boats and the 7,717,733 total U.S. registered
power boats in 1979 from Table C.l, it can be estimated
that 540,000 boats were subject to MSD regulation. If it
is assumed that 50% were in compliance by the end of 1976,
then approximately 270,000 boats would have been impacted
by MSD regulations. This number is 50% higher than the
181,000 figure from Table C.2. Taking into account that
the 50% 1976 compliance rate may be high, it is conceivable
that rather than 181,000 affected boats, the number could
be as high as 300,000 to 400,000.
|RR Associates, Inc..
C-14
-------
VlCTO* ATIYEH
EXHIBIT C.2
OREGON SURVEY
State Marine Board
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
3000 MARKET ST. N.E., No. 505, SALEM, OREGON 97310 PHONE 378-8587
March 17, 1981
Ms. Nina Bun in
JRB Associates
8*400 W. Park Drive
McClean, Virginia 22102
Dear Ms. Bunin:
I am writing in response to your telephone interview last week concerning
Marine Sanitation Devices (MSD's) and the E.P.A./Coast Guard rules
governing them. As promised, I am enclosing a copy of our Administrative
Rules which required "no discharge" at several inland lakes. The rule
is superseded now that the E.P.A./Coast Guard rules prohibit discharge
on all non-navigable inland waters.
Preliminary data from our boat owner survey are now available. I'll
try to summarize the most pertinent information concerning MSD's.
We sampled 12,613 boats from a population of 136,827. The response rate
was or 5,850 responses. Based on the sample, we estimate that ~Jk%
of all boats have nc3 installed toilet, while 19-^% or 26,500 vessels have
some type of toilet. The non-response balance (6.61) are assummed to
have no toilet since they are primarily under 15 feet in length.
Of vessels with toilet equipment, 63% (16,695 boats) had a portable
toilet which would not be governed by the MSD regulations. Of the
remaining vessels, 13% admitted direct discharge (3,^5 boats), 12% used
a holding tank (3,180 boats), and 111 had some type of MSD treatment
(2,915 boats).
Of the 2,915 vessels responding that they had MSD treatment, 5**% used
a Type I, 32% a Type II, 9-0% a Type III and the remaining 5% claimed
"some other" (whatever that is).
Several questions were asked to solicit information on the use of holding
tanks. 74% used odor suppression chemicals in their tanks. The overall
average cost of a pumpout was $1.00 when persons who did not pay were
averaged in, but $2.k0 for those persons who always paid.
Frequency of pumpout was also asked. 16% pumped after each days use,
19% after several days use, and 65% were irregularly pumped.
Perhaps most interesting was the fact that the majority of persons with
holding tanks (58%) used an on-board pump, the balance (^2%) used a
shoreside pumpout. The probable disposition of waste from on-board
C-15
-------
Ms. Nina Bunin EXHIBIT C.2 (continued)
Ma rch 17, 1931
Page 2
pumps very likely defeats the intent of a holding tank. The two greatest
problems mentioned with shoreside pumpouts were non-availability
and frequent closure or inoperabi1ity (20%).
Ultimately this data will be contained in our Statewide Vessel Sanitation
Plan being prepared under an E.P.A. 208 non-point source planning grant.
Completion is expected late this summer.
As discussed by phone, I would like to request a copy of your final
report to E.P.A. If you cannot furnish it, please forward me the name
of someone at E.P.A. from whom it can be requested.
If you need a clarification of the above survey data, feel free to contact
me. I hope you find it useful.
Sincerely,
Pa
Paul Donheffner, Supervisor
Waterway Planning £ Development
PD:krb
Enclosure
C-16
-------
EXHIBIT C.3
SUMMARY OF OREGON SURVEY DATA
% Covered
Number % Total % Samnle Bv ^SD Rep.
Total 136,827 100.0%
Sair.ple 12,613 9.2% 100%
Response 5,850 &.3% 46%
Statewide Estimates
No toilet 101,252 74.0%
"non-response balance" ^ 9,031 6.6%
(under 15' = no toilet)
Total no toilet 110,283 80.6%
Portable Toilets 16,695 12.2%
Total outside MSD reps. 126,978 92.8%
Vessels with installed toilets3 9,849 7.2% 100%
Direct discharge 3,445 2.5% 35%
(no treatment)^
Holding tanksc 3,180 2.3% 32%
Some tvpe of V'SD treatment0* 2,915 2.1% 30%
a,b,c,d,: Note that there appears to be about a 300 unit roundinp error;
i.e., "a" should equal the sun of b + c + d.
C-17
JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
• Where we have used a $4.00 pumpout charge, the Oregon
data suggests that $2.40 night be more reasonable.
• Where an 80% compliance rate for Oregon in 1976 had been
estimated (Table C.6), actual compliance is only currently
at roughly 65% (for these purposes, boats with holding
tanks were counted as in compliance).
• The use of an onboard pump by 48% of holding tank owners
suggests routine violation of discharge regulations may
be common.
On balance, the total number of boats affected by Federal regulations is
estimated to be in the range of 200,000 to 500,000. To the extent that a point
estimate is necessary, 350,000 boats is the most likely number that can be
identified with available data. To refine these estimates would require a
substantial primary data collection effort and, in fact, may not be possible
because necessary 1976 compliance data may never have been recorded. Further-
more, given a total population of boats in the range of 8 to 11 million (de-
pending on how boats are counted), estimates of boats affected by Federal MSD
regulations at a level of precision of +<150,000 is relatively precise and
should be adequate for policy purposes.
IRR Associates, Inc..
C-18
-------
APPENDIX D
CURRENT FEDERAL MSD REGULATIONS
JRB Associates, lnc..^_
-------
THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 1975
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Volume 40 ¦ Number 21
PART III
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
MARINE SANITATION
DEVICES
Certification Procedures and Design
and Construction Requirements
.JRB Associates, Inc.,
D-l
-------
4622
Title 33—Navigation and Navigable Waters
CHAPTER I—COAST GUARD,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
|CGD 73-83]
PART 159—MARINE SANITATION
DEVICES
These regulations establish certifica-
tion procedures and design and construc-
tion requirements for marine sanitation
devices. The regulations apply to vessel
owners, manufacturers of vessels, and
manufacturers of marine sanitation de-
vices (MSD's).
Interested parties were notified of the
opportunity to participate in this, rule
making proceeding by the notice of pro-
posed rule making published in the Fed-
eral Register of March 1, 1974 (39 FR
8038). Over 280 comments were received
and a public hearing was held in Wash-
ington, D.C.. on May 1. 1974. Statements
made at the public hearing and all writ-
ten comments received were considered
by the Coast Guard in promulgating
these regulations. Except as noted and
discussed In the following paragraphs,
the regulations as proposed have been
adopted without substantive changes.
Comments were received requesting
that promulgation of final regulations be
delayed. Issuance of these regulations is
necessary to give effect to the purposes
and goals of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (FWPCA). The purpose of
section 312 of FWPCA is to prevent the
discharge of untreated or inadequately
treated sewage from vessels into or upon
United States waters. The use of marine
sanitation devices that operate in com-
pliance with the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) discharge standards
will accomplish this purpose and thus
further the national goal stated In sec-
tion 101 of FWPCA to eliminate the dis-
charge of pollutants into United States
waters by 1985.
Several comments on the Notice of
Proposed Rule Making recommended
that the Coast Guard waive the applica-
bility of the EPA no-discharge standard
for marine sanitation devices used on
recreational craft. Some comments also
urged that the Coast Guard waive the
applicability of the EPA discharge cri-
teria in 40 CFR 140.3(c) for discharge
treatment devices used on recreational
craft. Most of the latter comments sug-
gested that large commercial vessels are
the primary source of sewage discharge
into United States waters. Section 312(c)
(2) of FWPCA authorizes the Coast
Guard after consultation with the EPA
to waive the applicability of EPA stand-
ards whenever necessary or appropriate
for "classes, types, and sizes of vessels
• • After consideration of these
comments, the Coast Guard has con-
cluded that the class of recreational craft
is so broad, that a waiver of EPA dis-
charge standards for these vessels would
be inappropriate. The waiver would apply
to such large number of vessels that the
purpose of section 312 of FWPCA to pre-
vent the discharge of untreated and in-
adequately treated sewage from vessels
Into United States waters would not be
accomplished.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Several comments were received ques-
tioning the legality and appropriateness
of the EPA no-discharge standard re-
gardless of class or type. One of these
comments noted that if a no-discharge
standard is imposed, adequate pump out
facilities should be required or a waiver
from compliance with the standard
should be granted under section 312(c)
(2) of FWPCA. Hie Coast Guard has no
authority to require that pump out fa-
cilities be established. However, requests
for waivers under section 312(c) (2) will
be fully considered.
Over 150 comments were received con-
cerning EPA's discharge standards in 40
CFR 140(c). Review of these comments
by both the Coast Guard and EPA re-
sulted in the formation of a joint work-
ing group tasRed with reassessing the
existing no-discharge standard. The
working group upon completion of their
reassessment recommended to the Ad-
ministrator of EPA that the Standard
(40 CFR 140) be revised to permit the
installation of certified flow through de-
vices which provide adequate treatment
on both new and existing vessels. While
existing vessels are permitted to install
flow through devices in accordance with
the 3-year incentive provision of the
existing Standard (40 CFR 140.3(c)),
this provision was not applicable to the
new vessels. Based on the probable adop-
tion of the recommended revision of
EPA's Standard, during the next 12
months. § 159.13 (Waiver for New Ves-
sels) is added to permit certified flow-
through devices to be installed on new
vessels for 1 year. This effectively treats
a vessel constructed during this 1-year
period as an "existing vessel".
Some other comments asked whether
a discharge type device can be used in
a no-discharge zone established by a
state before the effective date of the
regulations in this document if the de-
vice complies with the regulations in this
document. A state cannot enforce a no-
discharge prohibition on United States
waters against vessels with a certified
device until a no-discharge prohibition
Is established under section 312(f)(3)
or (4).
Section 312(f) (3) and (4) of FWPCA
provides, in part, that after the effective
date of the regulations in this document
a state may prohibit the discharge of
sewage, whether treated or not, into some
or all of its waters if the EPA has deter-
mined "that adequate facilities for the
safe and sanitary removal and treat-
ment of sewage from all vessels are rea-
sonably available" for the waters in
which the no-discharge prohibition is to
apply. Thus, the use of a discharge treat-
ment device, which Is certified pursuant
to the regulations in this document, can
be prohibited under section 312(f) (3)
and (4) in designated state waters.
Several comments asked whether a
toilet bowl is a part of a marine sanita-
tion device. A toilet bowl will not be
tested as part of the device unless it is a
part of the container enclosing the device
or unless it is bolted to or otherwise fas-
tened to the device.
Several comments were received ask-
ing whether a device that is designed to
retain sewage on board a vessel which
also has a through-hull fitting for use In
discharging sewage into the water can
be certified pursuant to the regulations
in this document. The regulations In this
document do not preclude the use of a
through-hull fitting. However, a device
furnished with a through-hull fitting will
not be certified unless there Is some
means of preventing discharge of sewage
through the fitting.
Comments were received requesting
that separate regulations be issued for
each class of vessel. The design and
equipment requirements in the final rules
apply to devices used on board all ves-
sels regardless of class. However, because
a particular test required by these regu-
lations may not be necessary or appropri-
ate for an MSD to be used on a particular
class of vessel, 9159.19 in the final regu-
lations allows the manufacturer of a de-
vice to apply for authorization to delete a
test which is not applicable or to perform
an equivalent test in lieu of the required
test.
One comment recommended that a
device certified pursuant to the regula-
tions in this document be tested at some
time after Installation on a vessel to en-
sure that it continues to be operable. A
program for inspecting representative
devices will be established. If these in-
spections show that devices are not being
manufactured substantially the same as
the test device, the manufacturer's letter
of authorization, issued under 5 159.16,
will be suspended or terminated.
One comment asked that the term
"territorial seas" in § 159.1 be defined as
a fixed distance from the shore. The
FWPCA. under which these rules are
promulgated, defines "territorial seas,"
in 33 U.S.C. 1362(8), and this definition
is added to the definitions in these regu-
lations.
Several comments requested that the
applicability of the regulations be clari-
fied. Since the distinction between a
"new vessel" and an "existing vessel" Is
important to the applicability of these
regulations to vessel operators, the defi-
nitions from the FWPCA are added to
§ 159.3.
One comment contended that built-in
holding tanks are not marine sanitation
devices. The definition of "marine sani-
tation device" in 33 U.S.C. 1322(a)(5)
includes any equipment installed on a
vessel which is designed to retain sew-
age. If there Is a problem with testing a
built-in holding tank, the manufacturer
may request an equivalent test under
5 159.19. Several comments were received
which requested a determination as to
applicability of these regulations to
"portable devices" such as those self
contained units capable of being carried
on and off a vessel. These regulations are
not applicable to such "portable devices".
One comment requested that proposed
§ 159.3'f) specify that sewage is only
waste from toilets and not from showers
or washbasins. The definition of sewage
does not include the normal effluents
from washbasins or showers, and the de-
finition is considered to be clear without
change.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 21—THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 1975
IRR Associates, Inc..
D-2
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
4623
Several comments requested clarifica-
tion of the effective dates of the regula-
tions. Section 159.5 is being changed by
adding the effective dates for new and
existing vessels. One comment asked
whether proposed 51 159.5 and 159.7 are
effective immediately. These sections are
effective January 30, 1977, for new ves-
sels and January 30, 1980, for existing
vessels.
Though the rules speak to certification
procedures and design and construction
Section 159.12 Is added to the final rule
In response to comments concerned with
the problem of vessels presently equipped
with no-discharge type MSD's and
equipping vessels with MSD's before cer-
tified and labeled devices are available
under these regulations. All no-discharge
type devices Installed prior to January 30,
1975, are considered certified but will not
be labeled. During the Interim between
promulgation of these regulations and
the time when there will be recognized
facilities to certify devices, the Coast
Guard will certify devices that meet EPA
standards. There will also be no label re-
quired on these certified devices. The
Coast Guard will compile and distribute
lists of the MSD models that have been
certified by this method.
Several comments concerned what
facilities would be recognized to test
MSD's. The Coast Guard Intends to rec-
ognize any facility that meets the re-
quirements In subpart D of the regula-
tions far a recognized facility.
8e*eral comments suggested that
gsgmtfactuma be required to furnish
proof of- product liability insurance or to
warrant their prodnct. The Coast .Guard
does not bare the authority to require
this.
One comment suggested the addition
of a provision that states that the In-
formation that Is required Is considered
proprietary. Section 312(g)(3) of the
FWPCA states that any information that
relates to a trade secret or other matter
that Is referred to in 18 U.S.C. 1905 shall
be considered confidential Therefore, It
Is unnecessary to Include this provision.
One comment states that appeal by a
manufacturer of a denial of certification
by the Coast Guard should be an adjudi-
catory proceeding under 5 TJ.B.C. 556.
The appeal procedures In 46 CFR 2.75
that are referenced in paragraph (d)
apply to all marine equipment that the
requirements for marine sanitation de-
vices, the Coast Guard believes that this
preamble is an appropriate place to
clarify the operator requirements for the
carriage of marine sanitation devices.
These requirements were prescribed in
part, in section 312 of the FWFCA and
in EPA's regulations of June 23, 1972,
adopting the no-discharge standard. The
following information is an attempt to
provide that clarification:
Coast Guard approves for use on in-
spected vessels and provides the neces-
sary procedural protection.
The heading of § 159.16 is changed to
reflect the contents of the section. The
letter of authorization authorizes a man-
ufacturer to certify by labeling that
these devices are in all material respects
substantially the same as the test device
certified by the U.S. Coast Guard pur-
suant to Section 312 of the FWPCA
Amendments of 1972.
Section 159.17, "Changes to certified
devices," does not preclude a manufac-
turer or recognized facility from recom-
mending which additional tests may be
required by the changes In the device;
however, the Coast Guard makes the
flnfti determination.
Many comments asked what data Is
acceptable as equivalent testing under
{ 159.19. The Coast Guard will consider
any data that is submitted by a manu-
facturer in the determination of equiva-
lency. For example, proof of satisfactory
performance of a device that has been in
use may be considered equivalent to the
mechanical tests that are required by
the regulations. Biological tests during
development of the device may be ac-.
ceptable.
Comments questioned tests of holding
tanks that are an integral unit of the
vessel. If it can be determined from a
vessel's plans or design criteria that the
tank is capable of the necessary perform-
ance, do tests are required; however,
final determination depends upon the
performance of the device as a system
after Installation and service on the ves-
sel.
If It Is Impractical to test an entire
system as a unit, selected components
may be tested; however, final determina-
tion depends upon the performance of
the unit after installation and service on
the vessel.
Several comments requested that
§ 159 55 require only information on the
device itself that would identify It. The
information required in § 159.55, as it
appeared in the Notice of Proposed Rule
Making, was meant to aid the user in
the operation of the device. The re-
quirement of this information has been
moved to § 159.57. This change results
in a smaller information plate on the
device, while at the same time still pro-
viding the used with the needed informa-
tion in the operating instructions.
The reference in proposed § 159.55(a)
(14) has been moved to § 159.55(a)(5).
The information required by this section
is intended to Indicate whether the de-
vice is to be installed on an inspected or
an uninspected vessel and the language
used in the proposed rule has been
changed in the final rule to reflect this
Intent.
Several comments noted that the
method outlined in § 159.55(b) of affix-
ing the information required by S 159.55
(a) to the device might result in leakage
problems for tanks constructed of cer-
tain materials. Section 159.55(b) has
been changed in the final rule to allow
for lettering the required information
on the device itself as long as the pro-
cedure used makes the lettering resistant
to the marine environment and the
chemicals used in the marine sanita-
tion device and as long as It will be ob-
vious if the information is altered or
removed.
The intent of proposed 3 159.59 was
that the required placard accompany
each device. The wording in the final
rule has been changed to make this in-
tent clear.
Several comments noted that all vents
will clog under certain circumstances
and, therefore, it would be impossible to
design a vent that would comply with the
requirements of proposed { 159.61. The
final rule has been changed to require a
ripRign that will minimize the occurrence
of clogging.
Section 159.65 Is being changed to
create an alternative method of indicat-
ing the amount of chemical supply need-
ed to operate a device. Under the pro-
posed rule, the device had to be designed
to Indicate the supply of chemicals in
the dlvice at all times. The final rule
allows this method, but also allows a
method that will Indicate when chemi-
cals must be added to the device for its
proper continued operation.
Proposed {159.71 required wire to be
stranded "when subject to vibration
• • One comment noted the difficulty
in determining which devices would be
subject to vibration. Vibration is a force
inherent in the marine environment and
unstranded wire would be subject to
breakage when introduced into that en-
vironment. the language of { 159.71 has
been changed in the final rule to require
all electrical wiring to be stranded.
One comment noted that baffles having
openings to allow liquid and vapor to
flow freely across the top and bottom of
the ir would be ineffective in minimiz-
ing short circuiting of sewage. A distinc-
tion must be made between tank baffles
Vessel type "Must be equJpped with a— Except when the vessel is
equipped uith—
Existing—A vessel whose construction Coast Guard certified no-dlschanre A Coast Guard certified discharge
was luiti&U'd 1 before January 30, MSD on and fitter January 30, type MSD installed on or before
1«j75. 1950. January 30, l'lTA. This MSD cau
be used as long as it operates
properly; or
A Coact Guard certified discharge
type MSI) installed after Jan-
uary 30.1978. but before January 30.
1980 This MSD c*n be used until
' January 3^, 1953 After January 30,
1983, a Coast Guard certified no
discharge MSD Is required.
New—A vessel whose construction was Coast Guard certified no-discharge A Coast Guard certified discharge
initiated > after January 30,1975. MSD on and after January 80, type MSD installed on or before
1877. January 30, 1976. This MSD can
be used as long as it operates
properly.
• For many years tbe Coast Guard has considered the Initiation or commencement of construction to be the laying
of a keel or nrntiiu- stage of construction.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 21—THURSDAY, JANUARY 90, 1975
JRB Associates, Inc.
D-3
-------
4624
and tank partitions. Tank baffles are
fitted into tanks of large surface area
to hinder the motion of liquid when the
tank is subjected to dynamic motion.
Tank partitions subdivide a tank and
control the access of liquid from one
section to another. Tank partitions would
be used in the sewage processing. Sec-
tion 159.81 does not apply to tank parti-
tions.
Section 199.83 is changed in light of
comments from continuous level indica-
tion to an indication of the level In the
system when the holding tank or tanks
should be emptied.
Section 159.85 is being changed to re-
quire that nearly all of thef material can
be emptied. This change reflects the dif-
ficulty in pumping a tank completely dry,
but the intent of this section is still to re-
quire a complete pump out.
One comment requested that the size
of the pipe in i 159.87 be deleted from the
regulations. The Individual making the
comment uses a pipe size between those in
the section. Adapters are available to
bring the fitting to the required size and
thus the sizes are retained In the section.
The sizes in the section are recommended
in the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973.
Several comments asked what dura-
tion of time was intended in § 159.89. A
momentary loss of power with immediate
resumption of power Is intended. A total
loss of power Is covered in § 159.53.
Several comments stated that pro-
posed 9 159.91, which required a means
to obtain a sample of effluent. Is unneces-
sary. This section has been deleted.
Sections 159.95(a)(1) and (2) are
being changed in response to comments
pointing out that toxic gases are un-
avoidably generated in certain treatment
methods. Fire protection aboard vessels
Is the subject of a continuing Coast
Guard research and development study
and fire protection regulations may be
promulgated later.
Several comments requested that pro-
posed 9159.101 be changed to allow some
deterioration of a device after all the
tests are completed. Section 159.101 Is
changed to require that there be no de-
terioration of the device affecting its op-
eration or safety after each test. The
change is consistent with the objective
of the testing sections to ensure that the
device operates properly and safely. Cos-
metic cracking which does not impair
the operation or safety of the device Is
not within the scope of these regulations.
Sections 159.103 through 159.105 are
clarified to require that liquid retention
components be filled with water to one-
half of their volume. This requirement
is applicable to all liquid retention com-
ponents, including those that are full
during normal operation. Although the
size and shape of the components mate-
rially affect the severity of the tests upon
the devices under §§ 159.103 through
159.107, requiring the components to be
filled to one half of their volume is ex-
pected to ensure a sufficiently severe test
for each device.
In response to comments requesting
that the number of shocks a device must
RULES AND REGULATIONS
be subjected to In proposed ! 159.105 be
reduced, the section Is changed to re-
quire 1000 shocks rather than the pro-
posed 5000. Comments requesting that
the force and duration of the shocks
in proposed J 159.105 be reduced are not
adopted in the regulations. The test
force of lOg's for 20-25 milliseconds is
similar to the force In the Underwriters'
Laboratories, Inc. test for fuel tanks.
Section 159.109 is changed to more ac-
curately reflect a pressure test.
Section 159.111 Is changed to require
a positive displacement pump to empty
the tank. This positive displacement
pump ensures a vacuum In the tank
after it Is emptied during the P. assure
and .Vacuum Pulse Test.
Proposed 9 159.117(a) Is changed to re-
quire the chemical resistance test for
materials that come into contact with
vapors in the normal operation of the
device. Contact with vapors makes the
test necessary because vapors might dis-
solve certain materials.
Proposed 9 159.117(b) (3> is changed
to expand the submersion requirement
to chemicals used or emitted, in addition
to those produced in the operation of the
device.
Proposed 9 159.119 is changed by sub-
stituting operating-fluid temperature for
water temperature. This change recog-
nizes the fact that some devices operate
with fluid other than water.
Proposed 9 159.121(b) is changed by
dropping the requirement that a filter
cigarette be processed by the device. Sev-
eral comments requested this change.
The Intent of the processing test is to
find out if a device will operate normally.
Processing a cigarette Is beyond the
scope of this test.
Several comments requested that the
amount and type of human sewage to be
processed In proposed 5159.121(c) be
more clearly defined. This paragraph is
changed In light of these comments to
require a urination to defecation ratio of
four to one and require at least one defe-
cation per test person per day. The
amount of sewage required for each de-
vice each day is the amount required to
be specified in § 159.57(b) (8).
One comment noted that the minimum
of 500 milligrams suspended solids re-
quired in the fresh domestic sewage in
proposed § 159.121(d) is an unrealis-
tically high density. This paragraph has
been changed in response to- this com-
ment to allow primary sludge to be added
to the domestic sewage to bring Its
amount of suspended solids up to a point
that will duplicate the shipboard wastes
which are generally more concentrated
than domestic sewages.
A comment from EPA requested that
the number of samples required In
§§ 159.123 through 159.127 be increased
from 30 to 40. This comment is adopted
in this regulation and 40 samples will be
required in these sections. The larger
number of samples required should pro-
vide a greater statistical confidence in
the tests.
Proposed § 159.1?3(b) is changed tore-
quire that four samples be taken each
day. Also added Is the requirement that
one of these four samples be taken after
the peak capacity processing period. This
sample will help determine the effect of
the high loading of the device.
Several comments stated that the tur-
bidity test for visible floating solids in
9 159.125 was not valid and was too se-
vere, and recommended that the screen-
ing test, that was included in the ad-
vance notice, be reinstated. In considera-
tion of these comments the Coast Guard
consulted with the EPA and is reinstat-
ing a screening test as the test for visible
floating solids under § 159.125. Section
159.125 requires the flush of the MSD
to be poured expeditiously through a
U.S. Sieve #12. T7ie material caught on
the screen Is dried and weighed. This
weight, expressed in the form, of milli-
grams per liter, is compared to the total
suspended solids of a like sample of flush.
The material on the screen, expressed
In the form of milligrams per liter, can-
not exceed 10 percent of the total sus-
pended solids in the sample flush. This
test must be repeated 40 times. This test
is Intended to measure when individual
particles are too small to be easily visible
In water. Any large particles that exist
after maceration will be caught on the
screen and therefore will be measured.
This is a definitive, easily repeatable test
which can give an objective measure-
ment of visible floating solids.
One comment questioned the Coast
Guard's authority to regulate. In
9 159.127, the fecal coliform bacteria
count for recirculating devices. The
comment stated that this requirement
establishes operating standards that are
beyond the scope' of mechanical safety.
Section 312(b) (1) of the FWPCA directs
the Coast Guard to promulgate regula-
tions that are consistent jwith maritime
safety to govern "the design, construc-
tion, Installation, and operation of any
marine sanitation device" on board a
vessel. Control of this bacteria count is
consistent with the maritime safety con-
siderations. EPA recommended that 1000
fecal coliform bacteria count is too high
from a sanitation standpoint, accord-
ingly It is reduced to 240.
Several comments requested that a
device not intended to be installed In an
explosive atmosphere be exempted from
9 159.129. These comments are adopted
in this regulation.
Several comments stated that there
are no standards for the approval of
recognized facilities. The final rule is
changed accordingly. A set of criteria
needed to become a recognized facility is
Included in subpart D. This change sets
down in specific terms the general re-
quirements in proposed 9 159.33.
In consideration of the foregoing,
Chapter I of Title 33 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended by add-
ing a new part 159 to read as follows: ,
Subpart A—General
Sec
159.1 Purpose.
159 3 Definitions.
159.5 Requirements for vessel manufac-
turers.
159.7 Requirements for vessel operators.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 21—THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 1975
IRR Associates, Inc.
D-4
-------
Subpart B—Certification Procedures
Sec
159.11 Purpose.
159.12 Regulation for certification of
existing devices.
159.13 Waiver for new vessels manufac-
tured before 30 January 1976.
159.14 Application for certification.
169.16 Certification.
159.16 Authorization to label devices.
159.17 Changes to certified devices.
169.19 Testing equivalency.
Subpart C—Design, Construction, and Testing
159.51 Purpose and Bcope.
159.53 General requirements.
159.55 Identification.
159.57 Installation, operation, and main-
tenance Instructions.
159 59 Placard.
159.61 Vents.
159 63 Access to parts.
169.65 Chemical level Indicator.
159.67 Electrical component ratings.
159.69 Motor ratings.
159 71 Electrical controls and oonduetors.
160.73 Conductors.
160.75 Overcurrent protection.
169.79 Terminals.
169.81 Baffles.
150.83 Level Indicator.
1&9&5 Bewage removal. —
J69.87 Bemoval fittings.
169.89 Power Interruption: discharge de-
vices.
159.93 Independent supporting.
169 95 Safety.
15957 Safety: Inspected vessels.
169.101 Testing: general.
169.103 Vibration test.
150.106 Shock test.
159.107 Boiling teat.
159.109 Pressure test.
159.111 Pressure and Vacuum Pulse test.
159.115 Temperature range test.
169.117 Chemical resistance test.
169.1 IS Operas 111 ty test; temperature range.
169.121 Sewage processing test.
160.123 Conform test: discharge devices.
169.126 Visible floating solids: discharge de-
vices.
169.127 Bafety Col if arm count.' recircula-
ting devices.
160.129 Safety: Ignition prevention test.
169.181 8afety: Incinerating device.
Subpart D—Recognition of Faculties
158.201 *rrn--"-*n
169.205 Criteria for recognition,
Authobitt: Sec. *13(b) (1). 86 Stat. 871
(8a U.S.C. 1322(b) (1); 4B CPU L46 and
1.46 (I) and (m).
. Subpart*—General
f 159.1 Purpose.
ITiis part prescribes regulations gov-
erning the design and construction of
marine sanitation devices and procedures
for oertLfying that marine sanitation de-
vices meet the regulations and the stand-
ards of the Environmental Protection
Agency promulgated under section 312 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 UJ3..C. 1322), to eliminate the dis-
charge of untreated sewage from vessels
Into the waters of the United States, In-
cluding the territorial seas. Subpart A of
this part contains regulations governing
the manufacture and operation of vessels
equipped with marine sanitation devices.
S 1S9.3 Defaritiom.
Tn part:
4*3 "Coast Guard-* nvurw the Com-
mandant or bis authorized representa-
tive.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(b) "Discharge" Includes, but is not
limited to. any spilling, leaking, pouring,
pumping, emitting, emptying, or dump-
ing.
(c) "Existing vessel" includes every
vessel, the construction of which was
initiated before promulgation of the
standards and regulations in this part.
(d) "Inspected vessel" means any ves-
sel that is required to be Inspected under
46 CFR Chapter I.
Ce) "Manufacturer" means any person
engaged in manufacturing, assembling,
or importing of marine sanitation devices
or of vessels subject to the standards and
regulations promulgated under section
312 of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act.
(f) "Marine sanitation device" and
"device" includes any equipment for in-
stallation on board a vessel which Is de-
signed to receive, retain, treat, or dis-
charge sewage, and any process to treat
such sewage.
(g) "New vessel" Includes any vessel,
the construction of which Is initiated
after promulgation of the standards and
regulations in this part.
(h) "Person" means an individual,
partnership, firm, corporation, or asso-
ciation, but does not Include an individ-
ual on board a public vessel.
(1) "Public vessel" means a vessel
owned or bare-boat chartered and oper-
ated by the United States, by a State or
political subdivision thereof, or by a for-
eign nation, except when such vessel Is
engaged in commerce.
(j) "Recognized facility" means any
laboratory or facility listed by the Coast
Guard as a recognized facility under tills
part.
e Inspected
under 46 CFR Chapter X
(n) "United States" Includes tbe
States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Vir-
gin Islands, Ouam, American Samoa,
the Canal Zone, and the Trust Territory
of the Pacific Islands.
(o) "Vessel" includes every description
of watercraft or other artificial contri-
vance used, or capable of being used, as
a mwns of transportation on the naviga-
ble waters.
§ 159.5 Requirements for vessel manu-
facturers.
(a) After January 30, 1977, no manu-
facturer may manufacture for sale, or
distribute for sale or resale any new ves-
sel, except a vessel not equipped with in-
stalled toilet facilities, ml ess It to
equipped with:
4625
(1) An operable no-discharge type ma-
rine sanitation device that has a label
placed on it under § 159.16, or that Is
certified under § 159.12.
(b) After January 30. 1980, no manu-
facturer may sell, or offer for sale, or
distribute for sale or resale any existing
vessel, except a vessel not equipped with
installed toilet facilities, unless it is
equipped with:
(1) An operable no-discharge type de-
vice that has a label placed on it under
I 159.16 or that is certified under 8 159.12,
or
(2) An operable discharge type device
Installed on the vessel prior to Janu-
ary 30, 1980, that has a label placed on
it under 8 159.16 or that is certified under
§ 159.12.
-------
4626
RULES AND REGULATIONS
§ 159.12 Regulations for certification of
existing devices.
(a) The purpose of this section is to
provide regulations for certification of
existing devices until manufacturers- can
design and manufacture devices that
comply with this part and recognized fa-
cilities are prepared to perform the test-
ing required by this part.
(b) Any no-discharge type device
which was installed on an existing vessel
prior to January 30, 1975, is considered
certified.
(c) Any person may apply to the Com-
mandant (G-MMT/82), U.S. Coast
Guard, Washington, D.C. 20590 for cer-
tification of a marine sanitation device
manufactured before January 30, 1976.
The Coast Guard will issue a letter certi-
fying the device If the applicant shows
that the device meets § 159.53 of this
part by:
(1) Evidence that the device meets
state standards at least equal to the
standards in S 159.53, or
(2) Test conducted under this part by
a recognized laboratory, or
(3) Evidence that the device is sub-
stantially equivalent to a device certi-
fied under this section, or
(4) A Coast Guard field test if con-
sidered necessary by the Coast Guard.
(d) The Coast Guard will maintain
and make available a list that identifies
each device certified under this section.
(e) Devices certified under this sec-
tion in compliance with 5 159.53 need
not meet the other regulations in this
part and may not be labeled under
§ 159.16.
§ 159.13 Waiver for new vessels manu-
factured before January 30, 1976.
(a) The Commandant hereby waives
the requirements of §5 159.5(a) and
159.7(a) for new vessels until Janu-
ary 30. 1976, If the manufacturer or op-
erator applies to and receives from Com-
mandant (G-MMT/82), U.S. Coast
Guard, Washington, D.C. 20590 certifi-
cation under this section. The Coast
Guard will Issue a letter certifying the
device If it is shown that the device
meets 5 159.53(b) by:
(1) Evidence that the device meets
state standards at least equal to the
standards in § 159.53(b), or
(2) Test conducted under this part by
a recognized laboratory, or
(3) Evidence that the device Is sub-
stantially equivalent to a device certi-
fied under this section, or
(4) A Coast Guard field test if con-
sidered necessary by the Coast Guard.
(b) The Coast Guard will maintain
and make available a list that identifies
each device so certified under this
section.
(c) Devices certified under this sec-
tion in compliance with § 159.53(b) need
not meet the other regulations in this
part and may not be labeled under
§ 159.16.
§ 159.11- Application for certification.
(a) Any manufacturer may apply to
any recognized facility for certification
of a marine sanitation device. The appli-
FEDERAl
cation for certification must Indicate If
the device will be used aboard all vessels
or only aboard uninspected vessels.
(b) An application may be in any for-
mat but must be In writing and must be
signed by an authorized representative
of the manufacturer and include or be
accompanied by:
(1)A complete description of the man-
ufacturer's production quality control
and inspection methods, record keeping
systems pertaining to the manufacture
of marine sanitation devices, and testing
procedures:
(2) The design for the device, includ-
ing drawings, specifications and other in-
formation that describes the materials,
construction and operation at the device:
(3) The Installation, operation, and
maintenance Instructions for the device:
and
(4) The name and address of the ap-
plicant and the manufacturing facility.
(c) The manufacturer must furnish
the recognized facility one device of each
model for which certification is re-
quested and samples of each material
from which the device Is constructed,
that must be tested destructively under
S 159.117. The device furnished is for the
testing required by this part except that,
for devices that are not suited for unit
testing, the manufacturer may submit
the design so that the recognized facil-
ity may determine the components of
the device and materials to be submitted
for testing and the tests to be performed
at a place other than the facility. The
Coast Guard must review and accept all
such determinations before testing Is
begun.
(d) At the time of submittal of an ap-
plication to a recognized facility the
manufacturer must notify the Coast
Guard of the type and model of the de-
vice, the name of the recognized facility
to which application Is being made, and
the name and address of the manufac-
turer, and submit a signed statement of
the times when the manufacturer will
permit designated officers and employees
of the Coast Guard to have access to the
manufacturer's facilities and all records
required by this part.
§ 159.15 Certification.
(a) The recognized facility must eval-
uate the information that Is submitted
by the manufacturer In accordance with
§ 159.14(b) (1), (2), and (3), evaluate
the device for compliance with 9 159.53
through § 159.97, test the device in ac-
cordance with I 159.101 and submit to
the Commandant (G-MMT/82), U.S.
Coast Guard, Washington, D.C. 20590 the
following:
(1) The Information that is required
under § 159.14(b);
(2) A report on compliance evalua-
tion;
(3) A description of each test:
(4) Test results; and
(5) A statement, that is signed by the
person In charge of testing, that the test
results are accurate and complete.
(b) The Coast Guard certifies a test
device, on the design of the device, if It
determines, after consideration of the
information that is required under para-
I, VOL. 40, NO. 2*1 —THURSDAY, JANUARY
graph (a) of this section, that the device
meets the requirements in Subpart C of
this part.
(c) The Coast Guard notifies the man-
ufacturer and recognized facility of its
determination under paragraph (b) of
this section. If the device is certified, the
Coast Guard includes a certification
number for the device. If certification is
denied, the Coast Guard notifies the
manufacturer and recognized facility ol
the requirements of this part that are
not met. The manufacturer may appeal
a denial to the Commandant (G-MMT/
82), U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, D.C.
20590.
(d) If upon re-examination of the test
device, the Coast Guard determines that
the device does not In fact comply with
the requirements of Subpart C of this
part, it may terminate the certification.
§ 159.16 Authorization to label devices.
(a) When a test device is certified
under 5 159.15(b), the Coast Guard will
issue a letter that authorizes the manu-
facturer to label each device that he
manufactures with the manufacturer's
certification that the device is in all
material respects substantially the same
as a test device certified by the U.S.
Coast Guard pursuant to section 312 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972.
(b) Certification placed on a device by
Its manufacturer under this section is
the certification required by section
312(h)(4) of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act Amendments of 1972,
which makes It unlawful for a vessel that
is subject to the standards and regula-
tions promulgated under the Act to op-
erate on the navigable waters of the
United States, if such vessel is not
equipped with an operable marine sani-
tation device certified pursuant to sec-
tion 312 of the Act.
(c) Letters of authorization issued
under' this section are valid for 5 years,
unless sooner suspended, withdrawn, or
terminated and may be reissued upon
written request of the manufacturer to
'whom the letter was Issued.
(d) The Coast Guard, in accordance
with the procedure in 46 CFR 2.75, may
suspend, withdraw, or terminate any
letter of authorization issued under this
section if the Coast Guard finds that the
manufacturer Is engaged in the manu-
facture of devices labeled under this part
that are not in all material respects sub-
stantially the same as a test device cer-
tified pursuant to this part.
§ 159.17 Changes to certified devices.
(a) 'Hie manufacturer of a device that
Is certified under this part shall notify
the Commandant (G-MMT/82), U.S.
Coast Guard, Washington, D.C. 20590 in
writing of any change in the design of
the device.
(b) A manufacturer shall include with
a notice under paragraph (a) of this sec-
tion a description of the change, its ad-
vantages, and the recommendation of
the recognized facility as to whether the
device remains in all material respects
substantially the same as the original
test device.
30, 1975
IRR Accnriatpg Inc.
D-6
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
4627
(c) After notice under paragraph (a)
of this section, Hie Coast Guard notifies
the manufacturer and the recognized fa-
cility in writing of any tests that must be
made for certification of the device or
for any change in the letter of authoriza-
tion. The manufacturer may appeal this
determination to the Commandant (G-
MMT/82), U.S. Coast Guard. Washing-
ton, D.C. 20590.
§159.19 Testing equivalency.
(a) If a test required by this part may
not be practicable or necessary, a man-
ufacturer may apply to the Comman-
dant (G-MMT/82), U.S. Coast Guard,
Washington, D.C. 20590 for deletion or
approval of an alternative test as equiv-
alent to the test requirements in this
part. The application must include the
manufacturer's justification for deletion
or the alternative test and any alterna-
tive test data.
(b) The Coast Guard notifies the man-
ufacturer of its determination under
paragraph (a) of this section and that
determination is final.
Subpart C—Design, Construction, and
% Testing
§ 139.51 Purpose and 6cope.
(a) This subpart prescribes regulations
governing the design and construction of
marine sanitation devices.
(b) Unless otherwise authorized by the
Coast Guard each device for which cer-
tification under this part is requested
must meet the requirements of this
subpart.
§ 159.53 General requirements.
A device must either:
(a) Be designed to prevent the over-
board discharge of treated or untreated
sewage or any waste derived from sewage;
or
(b) Under the test conditions described
In §§ 159.123 and 159.125 be capable of
providing a degree of treatment that will
reduce fecal coliform bacteria to no more
than 1,000 per 100 milliliters and prevent
the discharge of an effluent with visible
floating solids.
g 159.55 Identification.
(a) Each production device must be
legibly marked In accordance with para-
graph (b) of this section with the follow-
ing information:
(1) The name of the manufacturer.
(2) The name and model number of
the device.
(3) The month and year of completion
of manufacture.
(4) Serial number.
(5) Whether the device Is certified for
use on an Inspected or an uninspected
vessel.
(b) The information required by para-
graph (a) of this section must appear on
a nameplate attached- to the device or in
lettering on the device. The nameplate or
lettering stamped on the device must be
capable of withstanding without loss of
legibility the combined effects of normal
wear and tear and exposure to water, salt
spray, direct sunlight, heat, cold, and any
substance listed in § 159.117 (b) and (c).
The nameplate and lettering must be de-
signed to resist efforts to remove them
from the device or efforts to alter the
information stamped on the nameplate
or the device without leaving some obvi-
ous evidence of the attempted removal
or alteration.
§ 159.57 Installation, operation, and
maintenance instructions.
(a) The instructions supplied by the
manufacturer must contain directions for
each of the following:
(1) Installation of the device In a
manner that will permit ready access to
all parts of the device requiring routine
service and that will provide any flue
clearance necessary for fire safety.
(2) Safe operation and servicing of
the device so that any discharge meets
the requirements of §§ 159.123 and
159.125.
(3) Cleaning, winter layup, and ash or
sludge removal.
(4) Installation of a vent or flue pipe.
(5) The type and quantity of chemicals
that are required to operate the device,
including instructions on the proper
handling, storage and use of these chem-
icals.
(6) Recommended methods of making
required plumbing and electrical connec-
tions including fuel connections and
supply circuit overcurrent protection.
(b) The instructions supplied by the
manufacturer must include the follow-
ing information:
(1) The name of the manufacturer.
(2) The name and model number of
the device.
(3) Whether the device is certified for
use on an inspected, or uninspected ves-
sel.
(4) A complete parts list.
(5) A schematic diagram showing the
relative location of each part.
(6) A wiring diagram.
(7) A description of the service that
may be performed by the user without
coming Into contact with sewage or
chemicals.
(8) Average and peak capacity of the
device for the flow rate, volume, or num-
ber of persons that the device Is capable
of serving and the period of time the de-
vice is rated to operate at peak capacity.
(9) The power requirements, Including
voltage and current.
(10) The type and quantity of fuel
required.
(11) The duration of the operating
cycle for unitized incinerating devices.
(12) The maximum angles of pitch
and roll at which the device operates in
accordance with the requirements of
SS 159.123 and 159.125.
(13) Whether the device Is designed
to operate in salt, fresh, or brackish
water.
(14) The maximum hydrostatic pres-
sure at which a pressurized sewage re-
tention tank meets the requirements of
S 159.111.
(15) The maximum operating level of
liquid retention components.
g 159.59 Placard.
Each device must have a placard suit-
able for posting on which is printed the
operating instructions, safety precau-
tions, and warnings pertinent to the de-
vice. The size of the letters printed on the
placard must be one-eighth of an inch or
larger.
§ 159.61 Vents.
Vents must be designed and con-
structed to minimize clogging by either
the contents of the tank or climactic con-
ditions such as snow or Ice.
§ 159.63 Access to parts.
Each part of the device that is required
by the manufacturer's instructions to be
serviced routinely must be readily ac-
cessible in the installed position of the
device recommended by the manufac-
turer.
g 159.65 Chemical level indicator.
The device must be equipped with one
of the following:
(a) A means of Indicating the amount
in the device of any chemical that is
necessary for its effective operation.
(b) A means of indicating when chem-
icals must be added for the proper con-
tinued operation of the device.
§ 159.67 Electrical component ratings.
Electrical components must have cur-
rent and voltage ratings equal to or
greater than the maximum load they
may carry.
g >59.69 Motor ratings.
Motors must be rated to operate at
50° C ambient temperature.
§159.71 Electrical controls and con-
ductors.
Electrical controls and conductors
must be installed in accordance with
good marine practice. Wire must be cop-
per and must be stranded. Electrical
controls and conductors must be pro-
tected from exposure to chemicals and
sewage.
§ 159.73 Conductors.
Current carrying conductors must be
electrically Insulated from non-current
carrying metal parts.
g 159.75 Overcurrent protection.
Overcurrent protection must be pro-
vided within the unit to protect subcom-
ponents of the device if the manufac-
turer's recommended supply circuit over-
current protection is not adequate for
these subcomponents.
§ 159.79 Terminals.
Terminals must be solderless lugs with
ring type or captive spade ends, must
have provisions for being locked against
movement from vlhration, and must be
marked for Identification on the wiring
diagram required in i 159.57. Terminal
blocks must be nonabsorbent and secure-
ly mounted. Terminal blocks must be
provided with barrier Insulation that
prevents contact between adjacent ter-
minals or metal surfaces.
g 159.B1 Baffles.
Baffles in 6ewage retention tanks, If
any, must have openings to allow liquid
FEDERAL KEOISTH, VOL 40, NO. 21—THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 1975
JRB Associates, Inc.
D-7
-------
4628
RULES AND REGULATIONS
and vapor to flow freely across the top
and bottom of the tank.
§ 159.83 Level indicator.
Each sewage retention device must
have a means of Indicating when the de-
vice is more than % full by volume.
§ 159.85 Sewage removal.
The device must be designed for ef-
ficient removal of nearly all of the liquid
and solids in the sewage retention tank.
§ 159.87 Removal fining*.
If sewage removal fittings or adapters
are provided with the device, they must
be of either 1W or 4" nominal pipe size.
§ 158.89 Power interruption: discharge
devices.
A discharge device must be designed so
that a momentary loss of pora. during
operation of the device does not allow a
discharge that does not meet the require-
ments in SS 159.123 and 159.125.
§ 159.93 Independent supporting.
The device must have provisions for
supporting that are Independent from
connecting pipes.
§ 159.95 Safety.
(a) Each device must—
(1) Be free of design defects such as
rough or sharp edges that may cause
bodily injuries or that would allow toxic
substances to escape to the interior of
the vessel;
(2) Be vented or provided with a means
to prevent an explosion or over pressurl-
zation as a result of an accumulation of
gases; and
(3) Meet all other safety requirements
of the regulations applicable to the type
of vessel for which it is certified.
(b) A chemical that is specified or
provided by the manufacturer for use
In the operation of a device and is defined
as a hazardous material in 46 CFR Part
146 must be certified by the procedures
In 46 CFR Part 147.
(c) Current carrying components must
be protected from accidental contact by
personnel operating or routinely servic-
ing the device. All current carrying com-
ponents must as a minimum be of drip-
proof construction or be enclosed within
a drip-proof compartment.
§ 159.97 Safety: inspected vessels.
The design and construction of a de-
vice to be certified for installation and
operation on board an inspected vessel
must be shown by tests and reports of
inspection to be consistent with appli-
cable marine engineering requirements
in Subchapter P of Title 46. Code of
Federal Regulations, and with applicable
electrical engineering requirements In
Subchapter J of Title 46, Code of Federal
Regulations.
§ 159.101 Testing: general.
Unless otherwise authorized by the
Coast Guard, a recognized facility must
perform each test described in §§ 159.103
through 159.125. The same device must
be used for each test and tested in the
order in which the tests are described.
There most be no cracking, softening,
deterioration, displacement, breakage,
leakage or damage of components or
materials that affects the operation or
safety of the device after each test de-
scribed in S J 159.103 through 159.117 and
§ 159.121, and the device must remain
operable after the test described in
5 159.119. The device must be set up in a
manner .ciTniiiRt.tng installation on a
vessel in accordance with the manufac-
turer's instructions with respect to
mounting, water supply, and discharge
fittings.
§ 159.103 Vibration te*U-
The device, with liquid retention com-
ponents, if any, filled with water to one-
half of their volume, must be subjected
to a sinusoidal vibration for a period of
12 hoars, 4 hour* In each of the z, y,
and z planes, at the resonant frequency
of the device (or at 55 cycles per second
if there is no resonant frequency between
10 (o 60 hertz) and with a peak ampli-
tude of 0.019 to 0.021 Inches.
§ 159.105 Shock test.
The device, with liquid retention com-
ponents, If any, filled with water to half
of their volume, must be subjected to
1,000 vertical shocks that are ten times
the force of gravity (lOg) and have a
duration of 20-25 milliseconds measured
at the base of the half-sine shock en-
velope.
| 159.107 Boiling test.
(a) The device, with liquid retention
components, If any, filled with water to
half of their volume, must be subjected
to 100 cycles with the axis of rotation 4
feet from the centerline of the device, no
more than 6 inches below the plane of the
bottom of the device, and parallel to any
tank baffles. The device must then be ro-
tated 90 degrees on its vertical axis and
subjected to another 100 cycles. This test-
ing must be repeated with the liquid re-
tention components filled to the maxi-
mum operating level as specified by the
manufacturer in 8 159.57.
-------
tions. Any initial start-up time specified
by the manufacturer must be allowed
before tests periods begin. For 1 hour of
each 8-hour test period, the device must
be tilted to the maximum angles speci-
fied by the manufacturer under §§ 159.55
and 159.57.
(c) Except for devices described In
paragraph (d) of this section, the de-
vices must process and discharge or
store human sewage over at least an
8-consecutive hour period on at least
10 days within a 20-day period. The de-
vice must receive human sewage con-
sisting of fecal matter, urine, and toilet
paper in a ratio of four urinations to
one defecation with at least one defeca-
tion per person per day. Devices must be
tested at their average rate of capacity
as specified In $ 159.57. In addition, dur-
ing three periods of each day the system
must process sewage at the peak capac-
ity for the period of time it is rated at
peak capacity.
(d) A device that processes and dis-
charges continuously between individual
use periods or a large device, as deter-
mined by the Coast Guard, must process
and discharge sewage over at least 10-
consecutive days at the average daily
capacity specified by the manufacturer.
During three periods of each day the
system must process sewage at the peak
capacity for the period of time it is rated
at peak capacity. The sewage for this
test must be fresh, domestic sewage to
which primary sludge has been added,
as necessary, to create a test sewage with
a minimum of 500 mlligrams of sus-
pended solids per liter.
g 159.123 Coliform test: discharge de-
vices.
(a) The arithmetic mean of the fecal
coliform bacteria in 38 of 40 samples of
effluent discharged from a discharge de-.
vice during the test described In § 159.121
must be less than 1000 per 100 milliliters
when tested In accordance with 40
CFR 140.5.
(b) The 40 samples must be taken
from the device as follows: During each
of the 10-test days, one sample must be
taken at the beginning, middle, and end
of an 8-consecutive hour period with one
additional sample taken Immediately
following the peak capacity processing
period.
§ 159.125 Visible floating solids: dis-
charge devices.
During the sewage processing test
(} 159.121) 40 effluent samples of approx-
imately 1 liter each shall be taken at the
same time as samples taken in § 159.123
and passed expeditiously through a US
Sieve No. 12 as specified In ASTM E-ll-
70. The weight of the materia] retained
on the screen after it has been dried to
a constant weight in an oven at 103° C
must be divided by the volume of the
sample and expressed as milligrams per
liter. This value must be 10 percent or
less of the total suspended solids of at
least 38 of the 40 samples as determined
In the 13th edition of "Standard Methods
For the Examination of Water and
Wastewater."
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Note: 33 XX.S.C. 1321(b)(3) prohibits dis-
charge of harmful quantities of oil Into or
upon the navigable waters of the United
States or adjoining shorelines or Into or upon
the waters of the contiguous zone. Under 40
CFR 110 3 and 110 4 such discharges of oil
Include discharges which:
(a) Violate applicable water quality stand-
ards. or
(b) Cause a film or sheen upon or discolor-
ation of the surface of the water or adjoin-
ing shorelines or cause R sludge or emulsion
to be deposited beneath the surface of the
water or upon adjoining shorelines. If a
sample contains a quantity of oil determined
to be harmful, the Coast Guard will not cer-
tify the device.
§ 159.127 Safely Coliform count: recir-
culating devices.
Thirty-eight of forty samples of flush
fluid from a recirculating device must
have less than 240 fecal coliform bac-
teria per 100 milliliters. These samples
must be collected in accordance with
I 159.123(b) and tested in accordance
with 40 CFR 140.5.
§ 159.129 Safely: Ignition prevention
lest.
(a) Components of a device that are a
potential ignition source In an explosive
atmosphere must pass the test in para-
graph (b) or (c) of this section or meet
the requirements of paragraph (d) or
have a specific warning In the Instruc-
tion manual required by 8 159.57 that
the device should not be installed in an
explosive atmosphere.
Cb) Components protected by vapor
exclusion must be placed in a chamber
filled with a rich mixture of gasoline or
propane In air with the pressure being
varied from 0 to 2 psig once an hour for
8 hours. Vapor readings must be taken
In the void being protected and must in-
dicate a leakage less than 20 percent of
the lower explosive limit of the mixture
In the chamber.
(c) Components providing Ignition
protection by means other than vapor
exclusion must be fitted with an igni-
tion source, such as a spark plug, and a
means of injecting an explosive mixture
of gasoline or propane and air into the
void that protects the component. Con-
nections must be made so as to minimize
any additional volume added to the pro-
tected void by the apparatus delivering
the explosive mixture. The component
must be placed In a chamber filled with
an explosive mixture and there must be
no ignition of the explosive mixture sur-
rounding the component when the fol-
lowing tests are conducted:
(1) Using any overload protection that
is part of the device, the potential igni-
tion source must be operated for one
half hour at 110 percent of its rated volt-
age, one half hour at 50 percent of its
rated voltage and one half hour at 100
percent of its rated voltage with the mo-
tor or armature locked, If the potential
ignition source is a motor or par} of a
motor's electrical circuit.
(2) With the explosive mixture in the
protected void, the test Installed Igni-
tion source must be activated 50 times.
(3) The tests (1) and (2) must be re-
peated with any plugs removed.
4629
(d) Components that are certified as
being intrinsically safe in accordance
with the Instrument Society of American
(RP 12.2) or explosion proof in accord-
ance with the Underwriters Laboratories
STD 698 in Class J, Group D hazardous
locations (46 CFR 111.80-5(a)) need not
be subjected to this testing.
§ 159.131 Safely: Incinerating device.
An incinerating device must not in-
cinerate unless the combustion chamber
is closed, must purge the combustion
chamber of combustible fuel vapors be-
fore and after incineration must secure
automatically if .the burner does not ig-
nite, must not allow an accumulation of
fuel, and must neither produce a tem-
perature on surfaces adjacent to the in-
cineration chamber higher than 67° C
nor produce a temperature on surfaces
In normal body contact higher than 41°
C <»hen operating In an ambient tem-
perature of 25° C. Unitized incineration
devices must completely burn to a dry,
inert ash, a simultaneous defecation and
urination and must not discharge fly ash,
malodors, or toxic substances.
. Subpart D—Recognition of Facilities
§ 159.201 Application.
(a) To apply for listing as a recognized
facility under this part, a facility must
apply to the Commandant (G-MMT/82),
U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, Wash-
ington, D.C. 20590 and Include:
(1) Name and address;
(2) A description of the applicant's
capability to perform the tests and eval-
uations that are required by this part, In-
cluding information on personnel quali-
fications, equipment, materials, and fa-
cilities; and
(3) A signed statement that the'Coast
Quard may inspect the facility to verify
its qualification and Inspect the records
on certification of marine sanitation de-
vices.
(b) An applicant under paragraph (a)
of this section must submit any other in-
formation the Coast Guard requests for
the determination of the facility's quali-
fication as a recognized facility.
§ 159.205 Criteria for recognition.
To qualify for and retain recognition
as a recognized facility, a facility must
meet the criteria in this section.
(a) The facility must maintain an or-
ganization chart that shows the per-
sonnel structure and the relationship
between administration, operation, and
quality control for the testing of marine
sanitation devices.
(b) The facility must maintain a qual-
ity control program and a quality con-
trol manual that describes that program
and the responsibilities of personnel for
the testing of marine sanitation devices.
Including:
(1) Receiving, handling, and shipping
procedures;
(2) Test procedures;
(3) The calibration system;
(4) The test report system;
(5) Certification procedures and
standards;
(6) The record and filing system; and
REGISTBt, VOL 40, NO. 21—THUISDAT, JANUAtY 30. 1975
IRR Associates, Inc..
D-9
-------
4630
(7) The standards and filing system
for subcontracts.
(c) The facility must maintain a
master file that contains the Coast
Guard standards, reference standards,
and the facility's test standards that
apply to the testing of marine sanitation
devices.
(d) The facility must maintain the
shipping and receiving information for
each device, including—
(1) The date of receipt;
(2) The name of the manufacturer;
(3) The type of device;
(4) A record of the visible condition
of the device upon receipt; and
(5) Any other information that Is
necessary to accurately record and posi-
tively Identify each device that Is re-
ceived.
(e) The facility must follow written,
procedures for tests of devices. TJjese
written procedures must be available for
examination upon the request of the
Coast Guard.
(f) The facility must maintain data
sheets and test equipment lists for all
inspections and tests of devices. These
must be in sufficient detail for complete
verification and evaluation of the opera-
tions and objectives, including;
(1) The date and name of the test,
the name of the supervising engineer,
the manufacturer and description of the
test device;
(2) A detailed explanation of the re-
sults of each phase of tests and any un-
usual occurrences; and
(3) The signature of the technician
who performs each test.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(g) The facility must maintain a list
of the test equipment that It uses and
the date of the last calibration of that
equipment.
(hJ The facility must maintain and
document a calibration program and en-
sure the degree of accuracy as follows:
(1) The accuracy of all measurement
instrument standards must be traceable
to the primary standards of the National
Bureau of Standards. This traceability
may be through reference standards that
are certified for accuracy and stability
by the National Bureau of Standards.
(2) The normal accuracy of the ref-
erence standard must be at least four
times as great as that of the facility's
instrument that Is being calibrated. All
equipment must be calibrated at least
once a year or in accordance with the
recommended schedule of the instrument,
manufacturer of the National Bureau of
Standards.
(3) The facility must maintain docu-
mentation of the calibration standards
and test equipment.
(4) If the facility performs Its own
calibration, it must maintain written
calibration procedures, maintenance in-
formation, a record of the values that
are recorded during calibration, and the
standards and equipment that are used
for the calibration.
(5) If the facility does not perform
Its own calibration, it Is responsible for
the accuracy of the calibrations.
<1) The facility must have no conflict
of interest. The Coast Guard's determi-
nation on the conflict of Interest ques-
tions is final. Except as provided in para-
graph (j) of this section, conflict of In-
terest ts defined as follows;
(1) The loss or award of a specific con-
tract to test marine sanitation devices is
not a substantial factor for the financial
well being of the facility;
(2) The facility's personnel are free
of the influence or control of manufac-
turers, suppliers, or vendors; and
(3) The facility is not involved in the
promotion of a marine sanitation device.
(j) If the uniqueness or size of a device
requires testing by a facility that may not
meet all the criteria for conflict of inter-
est in paragraph (i) of this section, a
manufacturer may apply to the Com-
mandant (G-MMT/82), US. Coast
Guard Washington, D.C. 20590 to allow
the facility to conduct the tests.
(k) If a recognized facility subcon-
tracts for any testing, it must apply to
the Commandant (G-MMT/82), U.S.
Coast Guard, Washington, D.C. 20590 for
authorization and include the justifica-
tion for the subcontracting. The recog-
nized facility is responsible for the ac-
curacy and completeness of all tests by a
subcontractor.
(Sec. 313(b)(1), 86 Stat. 871 (33 U.S.C. 1322
(b)(1); 49 CFR 1.45(b) and 1.46 (1) and
(m)))
Effective date. This amendment Is ef-
fective on January 30,1975.
Dated: January 27, 1975.
O. W. Sileh,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard,
Commandant.
[FR DoC-75—2852 Filed l-29-75;8:45 am)
IRR Associates, Inc..
D-10
-------
THURSDAY, JANUARY 29, 1976
V* *T
v |V
i a
12
v V* '934 *
PART II:
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
MARINE SANITATION
DEVICES
Standards of Performance
. JRB Associates, Inc.,
D-ll
-------
4452
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Title 40—Protection of Environment
[FRL 480-8|
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER D—WATER PROGRAMS
PART 140—MARINE SANITATION
DEVICE STANDARD
Performance Standards
These regulations replace 40 CFR 140
and establish Federal standards of per-
formance for marine sanitation devices
as initially required by section 13 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, 33 U.S.C. 1163.
The Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) on
June 23, 1972, promulgated Federal
standards of performance for marine
sanitation devices (40 CFR 140), which
provided for no overboard discharge of
sewage into the navigable waters of the
United States. An incentive provision
was included in the regulation, stating
that boat owners who install on existing
vessels a device providing certain speci-
fied primary treatment and disinfection,
prior to the effective date of the stand-
ards, would be considered to be in com-
pliance with the standards for a period of
time after the effective date. Permitting
the installation of primary treatment
devices was done to obtain the maxi-
mum amount of immediate pollution
abatement during the period required for
the widespread installation of pump-
out facilities.
In October 1972 the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (the Act) was ex-
tensively amended. Section 13 was car-
ried over into section 312 of the Act, as
amended, with no substantial changes
other than revisions to section 312(f).
Revised language in section 312(f) of the
Act addressed actions that the Adminis-
trator must consider in allowing for the
complete prohibition of vessel discharge
in certain specified waters in response to
applications for such prohibition by
States. Section 312(f)(2) provides for
early preemption of existing State laws
when a vessel becomes in compliance
with Federal standards and regulations.
Under this section, a vessel equipped
with a marine sanitation device which
met the standards created by the Act
and the regulations thereunder, after
January 30, 1975 (the date on which the
initial standards and regulations were
promulgated, see the following para-
graph) and before the compliance dead-
lines for new and existing vessels, would
be in compliance with Federal law. This
would include vessels meeting the in-
centive provisions discussed above. Sec-
tion 312(f) (3) provides that if a State
determines that the protection and en-
hancement of the quality of some or all
of the waters within such State require
greater environmental protection than
the Federal standards provide, the State
may completely prohibit the discharge of
vessel sewage if the Administrator deter-
mines that adequate facilities for pump
out and treatment of vessel sewage from
all vessels are reasonably available. Sec-
tion 312(f) (4) provides that the Admin-
istrator may, by regulation, prohibit ves-
sel discharge in order to protect and
enhance the quality of specified waters.
It is noted that section 312(f) of the
Act provides mechanisms whereby an in-
dividual State can achieve a no-
discharge standard for some or all of its
waters. Under section 312(f) (3) a State
may enforce its no-discharge regula-
tions upon the Administrator's finding
that adequate pump-out and treatment
facilities are reasonably available for all
vessels using such waters. A petition by
a State and a subsequent determination
by the Administrator that adequate fa-
cilities for the safe and sanitary removal
and treatment of sewage from all vessels
are reasonably available for the subject
waters permits the State, through its
regulations prohibiting the overboard
discharge of sewage to preempt Federal
marine sanitation device standards for
the specified waters. Under section 312
(f) ,(4) certain sensitive waters, such as
marinas, drinking water intakes, areas
of intensive primary water contact rec-
reation, and shellfish beds, may be made
no-discharge waters by EPA regulation
if it Is determined that the protection
and enhancement of the quality of such
waters require such protection. Petitions
under section 312(f) (3) and section 312
(f) (4) have been received from several
States and the Agency has taken action
on such petitions following publication
of notices of their receipt and appropri-
ate periods for public comment. Such
actions have been taken since section
312(f) (2) provides for an immediate ef-
fective date of compliance with Federal
marine sanitation device standards for
any vessel complying with the Federal
treated effluent discharge portion of the
standard after January 30, 1975 and be-
fore the statutory compliance deadlines
for new and existing vessels.
Interested parties were notified of the
opportunity to participate in this rule
making proceeding by a notice of pro-
posed rule making published in the Fed-
eral Register on October 10, 1975 ( 40
FR 47972). Approximately 140 comments
were reecived. Except as noted and dis-
cussed in the following paragraphs, the
proposed regulations have been adopted
without substantive changes.
Comment letters were received from
approximately 56 individuals supporting
the proposed marine sanitation device
standard and from approximately 40 in-
dividuals criticizing the proposed stand-
ard. A substantial number of those
criticizing the proposed standard were
from the Great Lakes area.
One comment suggested that the
word "volatile" be inserted before "sus-
pended solids" in the last sentence under
§ 140.3(d). The testing procedure as it is
conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard pro-
vides for a net suspended solids deter-
mination and the change was not be-
lieved necessary.
Comments were received that a defini-
tion of the term "navigable waters"
should be added to the regulation be-
cause of confusion relating to the use
of the term in I 140.3. The word "naviga-
ble" has been deleted in favor of lan-
guage in Pub. L. 92-500, which defines
the waters to which this regulation
applies.
One commenter stated that the pro-
posed revision in the marine sanitation
device standard was inconsistent with its
alleged rationale in that the preamble to
the proposed rule making stressed that
the water bodies requiring the highest
degree of protection are those with re-
latively long detention periods, whereas
the discriminator for the standard is the
ability for ingress or egress rather than
detention time. The letter points out that
Lake Michigan has a detention period of
many years. Admittedly, there are envi-
ronmental exceptions to almost every
rule. As a general thesis, the Agency does
not believe that the statements con-
tained in the preamble to the proposed
rule are inaccurate. The majority of in-
land lakes where ingress and egress by
vessels subject to this regulation are im-
possible have long detention periods. Ex-
ceptions to such a statement are the
Great Lakes. However, the Agency at the
present time has not been made aware
of sufficient water quality problems which
would dictate making the entire Great
Lakes chain subject to a no-discharge
standard.
Several commenters recommended
that provision be made for State laws or
regulations which are more stringent
than the Federal standard to remain in
force. Such action would be contrary to
the provisions of § 312 of Pub. L. 92-500
and such section clearly provides that
State no-discharge laws may prevail
when appropriate action is taken under
§ 312(f).
One comment was received that § 140.5
be revised to show that analytical meth-
ods which are to be used to show com-
pliance to this regulation be those
methods promulgated by the Adminis-
trator in 40 CFR 136, "Guidelines Estab-
lishing Test Procedures for the Analysis
of Pollutants." This change would pro-
vide uniformity in testing procedures
among all EPA regulations and I 140.5
has been modified to accommodate the
suggested change.
Table 1 provides a summary of the
Federal marine sanitation device stand-
ard as it is being promulgated.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl. 41, NO 20—THURSDAY, JANUARY 29, 1976
D-12
JRB Associates, ln<-
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Table 1.—Summary of marine sanitation device standard
4453
Type of water
Vessel type
Must be equipped with a—
Except when the vessel Is equipped—
No discharge. Fresh waters not
subject to Ingress or egress
by vessel traffic or naviga-
tion by interstate vessel
traffic
Treated effluent waters, in-
cluding coastal waters, es-
tuaries, the Great Lakes,
fresh waters accessible
through locks or navigable
for interstate vessel traffic.
Existing. A vessel whose Coast Guard certified no-discharge type device or a
construction was initiated Coast Guard certified discharge type device which
before Jan. 30,1975. Is secured to prevent the discharge of sewage cn and
after Jan. 30, 1980.
New. A vessel whose con-
struction was initiated on
or after Jan. 30,1975.
Existing. A vessel whose
construction was Initiated
before Jan. 30, 1975.
New. A vessel whose con-
struction was initiated on
or after Jan. 30. 1975.
Coast Ouard certified no-discharge type device or a
Coast Guard certified discharge type device which
Is secured to prevent the discharge of sewage on and
after Jan. 30, 1977.
Coast Guard certified discharge type device from
which effluent will not have a fecal collform bacterial
count of greater than 1.000/100 ml nor visible float-
ing solids on Jan. 30.1980. On and after Jan. 31. 1980,
the effluent from Coast Guard certified discharge
type devices shall not have a fecal coliform bacterial
count of greater than 200/100 ml not suspended
solids greater than 150 mg/1.
Coast Guard certified discharge type device from
which effluent will not have a fecal coliform bac-
terial count of greater than 1,000/100 ml nor visible
floating solids on Jan. 30, 1977. On and after Jan. 31,
1980, the effluent from Coast Guard certified dis-
charge type devices shall not have a fecal coliform
bacterial count of greater than 200/100 ml nor sus-
pended solids greater than 150 mg/1.
On or before the date of promulgation of this regulation
with a Coast Ouard certified discharge type device from
which the effluent will not have a fecal coliform bac-
terial count of greater than 1,000/100 ml nor visible
floating solids. Such a discharge type devico may be
usod for its cperable life.
Do.
On or before Jan. 30,1078, with any Coast Guard certified
discharge type device; that device may be used for its
operable life. A Coast Ouard certified discharge type
device designed to produce effluent with a fecal coliform
bacterial count not greater than 1,000/100 ml and
no visible floating solids Installed after Jan. 30, 1979,
must be replaced by Jan. 31, 1980. The replacement
device must be a discharge device of the type required
on and after Jan. 31,1980.
Before Jan. 31, 1980, with a Coast Guard certified dis-
charge type device from which the effluent will not
have a fecal coliform bacterial count of greater than
1,000/100 ml nor visible floating solids. Such a dis-
charge typo device may be used for its operable life.
In consideration of the foregoing,
Title 40, Part 140 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is revised to read as follows:
Sec
140.1 Definitions.
140.2 Scope of Standard.
140.3 Standard.
140.4 Complete prohibition.
140.5 Analytical procedures
Authority: The provisions of this Part
140 are Issued under sec. 312, as added Oc-
tober 18, 1872, Pub. L. 92-500 § 2, 86 Stat. 871.
Interpret or apply sec. 312(b)(1), 33 U.S.C.
1322(b)(1).
§ 140.1 Definitions.
For the purpose of these standards the
following definitions shall apply:
(a) "Sewage" means human body
wastes and the wastes from toilets and
other receptacles intended to receive or
retain body wastes;
(b) "Discharge" includes, but is not
limited to, any spilling, leaking, pumping,
pouring, emitting, emptying, or dump-
ing;
(c) "Marine sanitation device" in-
cludes any equipment for installation
onboard a vessel and which is designed
to receive, retain, treat, or discharge
sewage and any process to treat such
sewage;
-------
4454
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(g) The degrees of treatment de-
scribed in paragraphs (a) and (d) of
this section are "appropriate standards"
for purposes of Coast Guard and De-
partment of Defense certification pursu-
ant to section 312(g)(2) of the Act.
(hi This section is not to be construed
to accelerate the effective date of the
standards and regulations promulgated
under section 312 as such date affects
the sales regulations for marine sanita-
tion devices specified in section 312(g)
(1): January 30, 1977, and January 30,
1980, for new and existing vessels, re-
spectively.
§140.4 Complete prohibition.
(a) A State may completely prohibit
the discharge from all vessels of any
sewage, whether treated or not, into
some or all of the waters within such
State by making a written application to
the Administrator, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, and by receiving the Ad-
ministrator's affirmative determination
pursuant to section 312(f) (3) of the
Act. Upon receipt of an application
under section 312(f) (3) of the Act, the
Administrator will determine within 90
days whether adequate facilities for the
safe and sanitary removal and treatment
of sewage from all vessels using such
waters are reasonably available. Appli-
i cations made by States pursuant to sec-
tion 312(f) (3) of the Act shall include:
(1) a certification that the protection
and enhancement of the waters de-
scribed in the petition require greater
environmental protection than the ap-
plicable Federal standard; (2) a map
showing the location of commercial and
recreational pump-out facilities; (3) a
description of the location of pump-out
facilities within waters designated for
no discharge; (4) the general schedule
of operating hours of the pump-out fa-
cilities; (5) the draught requirements on
vessels that may be excluded because of
insufficient water depth adjacent to the
facility; (6) information indicating that
treatment of wastes from such pump-out
facilities is in conformance with Federal
law; and (7) information on vessel popu-
lation and vessel usage of the subject
waters.
(b) A State may make a written ap-
plication to the Administrator, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, under section
312(f) (4) of the Act, for the issuance of
a regulation completely prohibiting dis-
charge from a vessel of any sewage,
whether treated or not, into particular
waters of the United States or specified
portions thereof, which waters are lo-
cated within the boundaries of such
State. Such application shall specify with
particularly the waters, or portions there-
of, for which a complete prohibition is
desired. The application shall include
identification of water recreational areas,
drinking water intakes, aquatic sanctu-
aries, identifiable fish-spawning and
nursery areas, and areas of intensive
boating activities. If, on the basis of the
State's application and any other infor-
mation available to him, the Administra-
tor is unable to make a finding that the
waters listed in the application require
a complete prohibition of any discharge
in the waters or portions thereof covered
by the application, he shall state the rea-
sons why he cannot make such a finding,
and shall deny the application. If the
Administrator makes a finding that the
waters listed in the application require
a complete prohibition of any discharge
in all or any part of the waters or por-
tions thereof covered by the State's ap-
plication, he shall publish notice of such
findings together with a notice of pro-
posed rule making, and then shall proceed
in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553. If the
Administrator's finding is that applicable
water quality standards require a com-
plete prohibition covering a more re-
stricted or more expanded area than that
applied for by the State, he shall state
the reasons why his finding differs in
scope from that requested in the State's
application.
§ 140.5 Analytical procedures.
In determining the composition and
quality of effluent discharge from marine
sanitation devices, the procedures con-
tained in 40 CFR 136, "Guidelines Estab-
lishing Test Procedures for the Analysis
of Pollutants," or subsequent revisions or
amendments thereto, shall be employed.
Dated: January 21, 1976.
John Qttarles,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc.76-2490 Piled l-28-76;8:45 am)
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 20—THURSDAY, JANUARY 29, 1976
D-14
JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
G061S
{4910-14]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coait Guard
tCGD 77-2161
MARJNE SANITATION DfVICES
Wotver of H>© Typo I MSD Installotion Dot*
On November 11, 1977. the Comman-
dant of the U.S. Coast Guard with the
concurrence of the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) waived the applicability of
§§ 159.5(c)(2) and- 159.7(c)(2) of the
Marine Sanitation Device (MSD) regu-
lations. This waiver was granted under
the authority of section 312(c)(2) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control
Ac:, which empowers the Secretary of
Transportation, who has delegated
this authority to the Commandant, to
waive the applicability of any stan-
dards and regulations after consulta-
tion with the Administrator of the
EPA. The applicable provisions of this
waiver are as follows:
If a firm commitment for the purchase
and placement of a Type I MSD In an exist-
ing vessel is made prior to January 30. 1978.
but difficulties are encountered in achieving
placement of the device in the existing
vessel; ar.d placement of the device, in oper-
able condition, is accomplished by January
30. 1979, the existing vessel will be deemed
to have the* MSD "Instalied" by J&.nuary 30.
1978. anti thPrefore be equipped with the
device so as to be in compliance with 33
CFR Part 159 and 40 CFH Pa/t 140.
This waiver allows an owner or oper-
ator of an existing vessel v. ho orders a
Type I MSD by J.jiuary 30. 1978. and
installs it in an operable condition by
January 30. 1979. to have that device
considered installed by January 30,
1978, for the purpoe of the incentive
provisions in 54159.5(c)(2) and
159.7(c)(2). Any owner of an existing
vessel who complies with this waiver
provision will be allowed to operate his
vessel after January 30, 1980, with an
Installed, operable Type I MSD in-
stead of the Type U or in MSD's that
would otherwise be required.
The owner or operator must have a
purchase order, purchase agreement,
or other evidence of a firm commit-
ment from an MSD manufacturer or
distributor, which is dated on or
before January 30, 1978. Evidence of
this commitment must be kept on the
vessel or otherw ise be readily available
upon request from any Coast Guard
boarding officer as long as the Type I
device remains installed.
The Coast. Guard considers this
waiver necessary because sufficient
numbers of Type I MSD's appropriate
for smaller vessels have only recently
become available. There is also a back-
log of production and delivery of Type
I MSD's and yard availability is limit-
ed, making timely installation diffi-
cult.
A list-of Coast Guard certified Type
I MSD's follows.'
-V-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 228—MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1977
. JRB Associates, Inc..
D-15
Reproduced from
best available copy.
-------
NOTICES
2&G37
[4910-14]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
[CGD 78-059)
MARINE SANITATION DEVICES
Woiv»r of Certain R»quir«menf* far Vmtli of
65 Feet in Length or Lett
Discussions have been held between
the Coast Guard and the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA) concern-
ing the problems of marine sanitation
devices (MSD's) on small vessels with
installed toilet facilities. The technol-
ogy for Type II MSD's has not devel-
oped so that acceptable MSD's are
available for vessels 65 feet in length
or less. Only one Type II device for
these vessels is currently certified and
this device is not suitable for many
small vessels because of space limita-
tions. Type III devices require pum-
pout facilities, the number of which
remain inadequate.
As a result of the discussions the two
agencies agreed to take the following
steps:
(a) The Coast Guard will undertake
research to promote the continued de-
velopment of Type II MSD's for small
vessels.
(b) The EPA will review and consid-
er revision of the Standards of Per-
formance for Marine Sanitation De-
vices, 40 CFR part 140. as they pertain
to vessels of 65 feet in length or less.
(c) The Coast Guard will waive the
applicability of certain requirements
in 40 CFR part 140 and 33 CFR part
159 for vessels of 65 feet in length or
less. These vessels may continue to in-
stall Type I MSD's.
Although small vessels are not the
major source of sewage pollution of
U.S. navigable waters, their sheer
numbers necessitate some control over
that source of sewage pollution. A rea-
sonable regulatory program for con-
trol of vessel sewage pollution must
take account of the realities of availa-
ble control technology, as well as the
continuing lack of an adequate
number of punipout facilities.
Therefore, the Commandant of the
Coast Guard, after consultation with
the Administrator of EPA, is granting
a waiver allowing continued installa-
tion of Type I MSD's on new and ex-
isting vessels 65 feet in length or less
with installed toilet facilities. This
waiver is authorized by section
312(c)(2) of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1322(c)(2)).
When the Commandant determines
that adequate Type II devices are
available for use by small vessels, and
after reasonable advance notice, this
waiver will be terminated. A vessel
which, has installed a Type I device
prior to the termination data will be
permitted to use it for the operable
life of the device.
MSD regulations for vessels with in-
stalled toilet facilities are contained in
33 CFR 159.5 and 159.7. The perform-
ance standards for these devices are
contained in 40 CFR 140.3
Vessels on which construction was ,
started on- or after January 30, 1975
(new vessels), must have a certified
MSD. This requirement is not affected
by the waiver.
The regulations would have required
vessels manufactured after January
30. 1980, to have a Type II or III MSD.
New vessels manufactured prior to
this date- would have been permitted
to use a Type I MSD only if the MSD
was installed before January 31, 1980.
The Commandant is waiving these re-
quirements.
Vessels on which construction was
started prior to January 30, 1975 (ex-
isting vessels), must have a certified
MSD by January 31, 1980. This re-
quirement is not affected by this
waiver. -
For existing vessels, present regula-
tions would have required installation
of either a Type n or III MSD to meet
the January 31, 1980, deadline. A Type
I MSD would have been accepted on
an existing vessel only if it had been
installed before January 31, 1978 (ex-
tended by a previous Coast Guard
waiver, (November 28. 1977, 42 FR
60619)). The Commandant waives
these requirements.
The MSD requirements for vessels
of 65 feet in length or less with in-
stalled toilet facilities which remain in
effect under the waiver are as follows:
All vessels of 65 feet in length or less
with installed toilet facilities must in-
stall a certified Type I, II, or III MSD.
This requirement is effective now for
new vessels. This requirement is effec-
tive on January 31, 1980, for existing
vessels (vessel length is determined by
46 CFR 24.10-17(b)).
The Commandant is waiving the ap-
plicability of 33 CFR 159.5(b) and
159.7(b) to new vessels of 65 feet in
length or less. The Commandant is
also waiving the applicability of the
dates in 159.5(c)(2) and 159.7(cX2) to
existing vessels. Finally, the applica-
bility of 40 CFR 140.3(d) to vessels oi
65 feet in length or less is a'so waived.
The waiver is as follows: This waiver
applies only to vessels 65 feet
length or less, that, have installed
toilet facilities. (Vessel length is deter-
mined by 46 CFR 24.10-17(b).) Type I
MSD's may be installed in new or ex-
isting vessels. New or replacement
MSD installations after January 30.
1S80 may be Type I, II. or HL
Note.—This waiver is not applicable to
vessels over 65 feet In length. All MSD
s'-aadards and regulations in 40 CFR 140
ard 33 CFR 159 still apply to these vessel*.
All new or replacement MSD installations
on these vessels after January 30. 1980 m'ist
be Ttpc II or III.
Dated: July 5, 1978.
J. B. Hayes,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard
Commandant.
LFR Doc. 79-18885 Filed 7-7-73; 8:45 ami
FEDERAL REGISTER VOL 43, NO. 132—MONDAY, JUIY 10, 1978
JRB Associates, lr""
D-16
-------
APPENDIX E
SUMMARY OF STATE LAWS GOVERNING
WASTE DISPOSAL FROM WATERCRAFT
Part A: IS71 U.S. Summary
Part B: 1981 U.S. Summary
Part C: Overview of Marine Sanitation
Regulations of the Province of
Ontario, Canada
-------
Part A: 1971 Summary
1971 SUMMARY OF STATE LAWS GOVERNING WASTE DISPOSAL FROM WATERCRAFT
This information was originally presented as Appendix III in the 1971
report, Treatment and Disposal of Vessel Sanitary Wastes - A Synthesis of
Current Information, prepared by the Panel on Treatment and Disposal of Sanitary
Wastes, Maritime Information Committee, Division of Engineering, National Research
Council, National Academy of Sciences. The conclusion to the original introduc-
tory paragraph is repeated here:
"Although these laws and regulations are subject to change and varying degrees
of enforcement the following summary is indicative of state action as of
22 February 1971:"
Alabama - No regulations relating specifically to marine waste disposal.
Regulations being prepared; not yet promulgated.
Alaska - No laws relating specifically to marine waste disposal.
Arizona - No watercraft equipped with a marine toilet shall be operated as
to discharge sewage into water. Holding tanks are permitted where adequate
dockside disposal facilities are available.
Arkansas - Any boat with sleeping accommodations or intended for overnight
occupancy must be equipped with a marine toilet and sewage treating device or
other approved system of sewage disposal. Treating devices must produce an
effluent having a coliform count of 240 or less per 100 ml.
California - No vessel equipped with a toilet may be operated in waters of
any lake, reservoir or fresh water impoundment unless it is so designed that
no sewage can be discharged into water.
Colorado - No vessel equipped with a water closet may be operated unless
water closet is incapable of discharging directly into water.
Connecticut - No laws relating specifically to marine waste disposal.
District of Columbia - The discharge of wastes from any vessel at berth is
prohibited.
Delaware - No laws relating specifically to marine waste disposal.
Florida - No laws relating specifically to marine waste disposal.
Georgia - Law requires suitable treatment device on all watercraft equipped
with marine toilets. Suitable treatment devices include chlorinator-
macerators and holding tanks.
Hawaii - Regulations prohibit discharge of sewage (a) into waters within the
confines of a small boat harbor, or, (b) into waters of the state from a
vessel within one-half mile from its shores unless it is adequately treated
to prevent pollution.
Idaho - No laws relating specifically to marine waste disposal.
Illinois - Law permits only the use of holding tanks, incinerator devices,
and other devices that will prevent pollution.
¦JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
Indiana - Law prohibits the operation of toilets on boats in Indiana waters.
Department policy permits the use of holding tanks and incinerators.
Iowa - No laws relating specifically to marine waste disposal.
Kansas - The Department of Health provides a certification program for marine
toilets located on watercraft operating on impoundments managed by the Corps
of Engineers; a chlorinator-macerator is required for certification.
Kentucky - State regulations require approved treatment devices on boats
equipped with toilets. Only approved devices are holding tanks or incinera-
tors.
Louisiana - No specific regulations covering disposal of watercraft wastes.
State sanitary code prohibits discharge of untreated sanitary wastes. Water-
craft engaged in shellfish operations are required to have adequate sanitary
treatment facilities.
Maine - No laws relating specifically to marine waste disposal.
Maryland - No laws relating specifically to marine waste disposal.
Massachusetts - Existing legislation prohibits discharge of wastes from any
sources which would violate the approved Water Quality Standards. No regu-
lations, however, have been established.
Michigan - No watercraft equipped with a marine toilet may be operated unless
it is equipped with (a) a holding tank, (b) an incinerating device, or, (c)
self-contained marine toilet.
Minnesota - Minnesota has "no discharge" law for pleasure craft.
Mississippi - No laws relating specifically to marine waste disposal.
Missouri - Law provides that any boat equippped with a marine toilet must
have a treatment device capable of producing an effluent meeting the follow-
ing minimum standards: (a) be free of unsightly floating solids; (b) have a
coliform density not exceeding 240 per 100 ml; (c) have a substantial chlorine
residual present in the effluent at all times. The law does not apply to
boats engaged in interstate commerce on Missouri or Mississippi Rivers.
Montana - State standards require holding tanks, incinerators, or flow-through
treatment devices.
Nebraska - Law requires that boats equipped with toilet facilities treat
wastes in manner which will prevent water pollution.
Nevada - Law requires that every vessel equipped with a marine toilet be
operated so that inadequately treated sewage is not discharged into water.
Macerator/chlorinator is permitted.
New Hampshire - Holding tanks is the only approved method of collection and
disposal of sewage from watercraft.
E-2
JRB Associates, Inc.—
-------
New Jersey
- No regulations relating specifically to marine waste disposal.
New Mexico - No laws relating specifically to marine waste disposal.
New York - No watercraft equipped with a marine toilet may operate unless it
is equipped with a treatment device producing an effluent meeting the follow-
ing standards: (a) be free of floating solids; (b) have a BOD not more than
50 ppm; (c) have not more than 50 ppm suspended solids; (d) have a coliform
count number not in excess of 50/100 ml.
North Carolina - Requires a treatment device capable of producing an effluent
free of unsightly solids and having a coliform count of 1000 or less /100 ml.
North Dakota - State Health Department must approve the type of waste treat-
ment facilities to be installed on boats.
Ohio - State Code prohibits use of marine toilets except on main stem of
Ohio River, Muckingum River and Lake Erie. Legislation has been .introduced
in the General Assembly that will permit the use of any device approved by
the State Health Department.
Oklahoma - State Board of Health has prohibited the use of marine toilets on
lakes and reservoirs below a certain size. On waters where marine toilets
are permitted, the boat must be equipped with either a holding tank or a
chlorinator/macerator capable of producing an effluent containing a most
probable number (MPN) of coliform bacteria not in excess of 240 per 100 ml.
Oregon - Sewage must be treated in a manner approved by the State Board of
Health and the State Sanitary Authority. The Oregon State Marine Board
requires that sewage from watercraft in eight lakes in Deschutes County must
be rendered harmless prior to discharge.
Pennsylvania - No laws relating specifically to marine waste disposal.
Rhode Island - No laws relating specifically to marine waste disposal.
South Carolina - No laws relating specifically to marine waste disposal.
South Dakota - Requires a treatment device capable of producing an effluent
free of unsightly solids and having a coliform count of 240 or less /100 ml.
Tennessee - Regulations require that treatment devices must be used in con-
junction with marine toilets. Effluent must be free of unsightly floating
solids and must have coliform count not to exceed 240 per 100 ml.
Texas - Law requires boats equipped with a marine toilet to have a holding
tank.
Utah - Law prohibits discharge of untreated sewage from vessels. Holding tanks,
incinerators or chlorinator/macerators are acceptable.
Vermont - No specific law against pollution from vessels. However, macerator/
chlorinators are not considered adequate.
JRB Associates, Inc.—
E-3
-------
Virginia - No regulations relating specifically to marine waste disposal.
Washington - No laws relating specifically to marine waste disposal. Legis-
lation being considered. Holding tanks and no discharge.
West Virginia - No laws relating specifically to marine waste disposal.
Wisconsin - Law requires the use of a holding tank to prevent the discharge of
sewage from wa tercraft.
Wyoming - No laws relating specifically to marine waste disposal.
E-4
iJRB Associates, Inc.—
-------
Part B: 1981 Summary
1981 SUMMARY OF STATE LAWS GOVERNING WASTE DISPOSAL FROM WATERCRAFT
The following information was compiled from the following sources:
-Bertges, W.C., Recreational Vessel Waste Pollution. Appendix I,
U.S. Coast Guard, NTIS "AD/A-000-453, June, 19 74.
-The Boating Industry Association. Summary of state laws governing
watercraft waste disposal. Reprinted by Thetford Corporation.
-Notices of EPA actions on State vessel petitions
-Discussions with State Boating Law Administrators and other State
personnel familiar with MSD regulations.
Alabama - Xo regulations relating specifically to marine waste disposal.
No MSD regulations anticipated in the near future.
Alaska - No regulations relating specifically to marine waste disposal or
MSDs.
krizona - No watercraft equipped with a marine toilet shall be operated as to
permit sewage to be discharged directly into the waters of the State. Holding
tanks (approved type storage containers) shall be allowed where adequate
dockside disposal facilities are provided.
Arkansas - Any boat with sleeping accomodations or intended for overnight
occupancy must be equipped with a marine toilet and sewage treating device
or other approved system of sewage disposal. Treating devices must produce
an effluent having a coliform count of 240 or less per 100 ml. Portable
toilets are not allowed.
1,2
California - State requirements are the same as Federal. State has standards
to establish criteria for the design, construction, operation and maintenance
of punp-out facilities for the removal of sewage from holding tanks. EPA
approved "no discharge" zones established for Upper and Lower Newport Bays,
Sunset Bay inland of the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge, Huntington Harbor,
portions of San Diego Bay less than 30 feet deep at mean low water, Mission
Bay, Oceanside Harbor, Dana Point Harbor, Lake Ta'noe (jointly with Nevada),
Channel Islands Harbor, Oxnard, and Avalon Harbor, Santa Catalina Island.
Colorado - No vessel equipped with an MSD may be operated unless such water
closet is self-contained and incapable of discharging directly into the water.
Connecticut - No laws relating specifically to marine waste disposal or MSDs.
Delaware - No laws relating specifically to marine waste disposal.
District of Columbia - The discharge of wastes from any vessel at berth is
prohibited.
Florida - No laws relating specifically to marine waste disposal.
1
Georgia - Law requires suitable treatment device (MSD) on all watercraft
equipped with marine toilets. All discharges from MSDs into waters of State
must be in compliance with the Federal standards of performance and regula-
tions for MSDs.
JRB Associates, Inc.^—
E-5
-------
1
Hawaii - Regulations prohibit discharge of sewage (a) into waters within the
confines of a small boat harbor, or (b) into waters of the State from a vessel
within three miles from its shores, unless it is adequately treated to prevent
pollution.
Idaho - Xo laws relating specifically to MSDs, but prohibit any discharge of
waste into waters of the State regardless of the source.
Illinois - Only holding tanks, incinerator devices, and other devices that
prevent direct discharge are permitted.
Indiana - All vessels with toilets must have holding tanks or incinerators.
Portable toilets are also permitted.
1
Iowa - Only a very old law that prohibits the discharge of garbage and other
debris into the waters of the State. Mo law relating specifically to MSDs.
1
Kansas - After State Department of Health determines that adequate on-shore
facilities for receiving and treating marine sewage are available, no vessel
may be operated that has a toilet which discharges sewage to other than an
on-shore receiving and treating facility. It is unlawful to discharge (into
or near the waters of the State) any receptacle containing sewage. Vessels
registered outside of Kansas must be in compliance with all applicable State
and Federal marine toilet requirements applicable and associated with the
vessel registration.
1
Kentucky - Adopted the United States Coast Guard regulations governing the
design, construction, installation and operation of MSDs as issued and
amended.
Louisiana - State sanitary code prohibits discharge of untreated sanitary
wastes. Watercraft engaged in shellfish operations are required to have
adequate sanitary treatment facilities.
1
Maine - Discharge of sewage, garbage or other waste material from watercraft
is prohibited on inland waters of the State. Holding tanks or suitable con-
tainers are required on watercraft having a permanently installed sanitary
waste disposal system and which are operated on inland waters of the State.
1
Maryland - No laws relating specifically to MSDs or marine sewage disposal,
except for a special regulation applicable only to Deep Creek Lake, Garrett
Co. This regulation prohibits the discharge of garbage, sewage, or other
like waste material into the Lake from any vessel.
Massachusetts - Existing legislation prohibits discharge of wastes from any
sources which would violate the approved Water Quality Standards. No regu-
lations, however,have been established.
1,2
Michigan - No discharge of garbage, litter, sewage or oil is allowed from any
recreational or commercial watercraft into the waters of the State. Watercraft
equipped with marine toilets must have holding tanks or self-contained marine
.JRB Associates, Inc.
E-6
-------
toilets or incinerating devices. EPA approved "no discharge" zones for the
Michigan waters of Lakes Michigan, Huron, Superior, Erie, and St. Clair, all
waterways connected thereto, and all inland lakes.
1,2
Minnesota - No person shall discharge into the waters of the State, directly
or indirectly from watercraft, any sewage or other wastes. Marine toilets
must be equipped with a retention device acceptable to the pollution control
agency. Coast Guard certified portable toilets may be used. EPA approved
"no discharge" areas for the Mississippi River from Hastings, Minn, to the
Coon Rapids Dam, the Minnesota River from its mouth to Shakopee , Minn., and
for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area.
Mississippi - Some specific areas, e.g. oyster reefs, have no discharge
regulations.
1,2
Missouri - State law required no discharge for all waters of State. EPA
approved "no discharge" zones for the waters of the State with the exception
of the western portion of Bull Shoals Lake, and the Missouri and Mississippi
Rivers.
1
Montana - Discharge of waste from vessel prohibited. Vessels equipped with a
galley or toilet shall have a wastewater holding system sealed to prevent
discharge, whether treated or untreated.
Nebraska - State law prohibits dumping of waste material into or near waters
of the State. Also, law requires that boats equipped with toilet facilities
treat wastes in a manner which will prevent water pollution.
1,2
Nevada - Every boat equipped with a marine toilet must be operated so that
inadequately treated sewage is not discharged into the waters of the State.
EPA approved "no discharge" zone for the Nevada waters of Lake Tahoe (jointly
with California).
1,2
New Hampshire - Discharge of waste from watercraft prohibited on inland waters
of the State, i.e. holding tanks only. Tidal estuaries excluded from law.
EPA approved "no discharge" zones for all inland waters of the State, excluding
all tidal waters.
New Jersey - Marine toilets must be sealed off (i.e. discharge prevented)
on freshwater lakes. Also no discharge in dockage areas or near established
bathing beaches.
1,2
New Mexico - Water closet on vessel must be self-contained and incapable of
discharging directly into the water. EPA approved "no discharge" zone for
all waters of the State.
IPP Associates, Inc.-
E-7
-------
New York - State laws required no discharge, i.e. holding tanks. EPA approved
"no discharge" zones for Lake George and the New York waters of Lake Champlain.
North Carolina - Vessels on inland lakes or inland fishing waters which are
equipped with marine toilets must also be equipped with a holding tank or
sewage treatment device approved by State Board of Health, or must have
discharge fittings sealed or capped to prevent discharge into the water.
1
North Dakota - No person shall discharge any untreated sewage into waters
of the State. Marine toilet must be equipped with a treatment device meeting
standards established by the state water pollution control board.
1
Ohio - State law requires holding tanks on any watercraft with a sink, toilet
or sanitary system.
1
Oklahoma - State Department of Health has prohibited the use of marine toilets
on reservoirs below a minimum size. On waters where marine toilets are per-
mitted, the boat must be equipped with either a holding tank or a chlorinator-
macerator capable of producing an effluent with an MPN of not more than 240
coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters.
1
Oregon - Administrative "no discharge" rules for 8 high mountain lakes, but
no comprehensive statewide lav; for MSDs.
1
Pennsylvania - State laws are identical to Federal regulations requiring MSDs.
Rhode Island - No laws relating specifically to marine waste disposal.
South Carolina - No laws relating specifically to marine waste disposal.
"^outh Dakota - Vessels with kitchen or toilet facilities shall not discharge
wastes into waters of the State.
Tennessee - Regulations require that treatment devices must be used in
conjunction with marine toilets. Effluent must be free of unsightly
floating solids and must have coliform count not to exceed 240 per 100 ml.
1,2
Texas - No person may discharge sewage, treated or untreated, from a boat into
the waters of the State. Holding tanks required, and may be discharged only
to a certified pump-out facility. EPA approved "no discharge" areas for 24
freshwater lakes.
1
Utah - Marine toilets must be equipped with facilities that will adequately
treat, hold, incinerate or otherwise handle sewage in a manner that is capable
of preventing water pollution.
1,2
Vermont - No discharge of sewage is allowed. Holding tanks or portable toilets
are required. EPA approved "no discharge" areas for the waters of the State,
including those Vermont portions of Lakes Champlain and Memphremagog.
E-8
-JRB Associates, Inc.—
-------
1
Virginia - Boats with installed toilets and regularly moored, berthed, or
docked within designated shellfish growing waters of the State shall be equipped
with a sewage retention device. However, such boats equipped, on the date of
adoption of this regulation, with a MSD which meets the requirements of the
Clean Water Act (Sec. 312) may continue with that MSD so long as the device
operates properly.
1
Washington - No laws relating specifically to marine waste disposal.
West Virginia - Regulations require holding tanks only.
1,2
Wisconsin - Boats equipped with toilets prohibited from discharging toilet
wastes into waters of the State. Holding tank or incinerator required. EPA
approved "no discharge" zone for all waters of the State, except for the
Wisconsin waters of Lake Superior, the Mississippi River, and the St. Croix
River to North Hudson.
Wyoming - No laws relating specifically to marine waste disposal.
1 - Copy of State law on file.
2 - States having EPA approved "no discharge" zones.
E-9
¦JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
Part C: OVERVIEW OF MARINE SANITATION REGULATIONS
OF THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO, CANADA
fci
Ontario
Mintstrv Hon Harry C PwtoB. DDS
ottte "****'
. Granvnw.s. Scott. Q.C..
Environment Dapury Mma*
Publication code: WFS2
ABOUT WATER
Revised
January 1980
ONTARIO CONTINUES BAN ON DIRECT DISCHARGE
OF TREATED OR UNTREATED SEWAGE FROM PLEASURE BOATS
*
Ajtefer* r
The Ontario Ministry of the Environment will continue
to enforce its ban against the dumping of treated or
untreated sewage from pleasure boats into provincial
waters.
As of June 1, 1969, all toilet-equipped pleasure craft
have had to also be equipped with holding tanks or
incineration systems. The macerator/chlorinator has
been banned from use by pleasure craft in Ontario
waters since June 1,1971.
The Ontario regulations prohibit the overboard dis-
charge of treated or untreated sewage from pleasure
boats and require adequate shore-based pump-out
facilities. Violators of the pleasure craft regulation are
subject to prosecution by means of a summary convic-
tion ticket issued by the inspecting officer.
Portable toilets must be secured to the boat, and be
adapted to a deck fitting for a shore-based pump-out.
All pleasure boats, including those which are
foreign-owned but maintained in Ontario, must be
equipped to comply in all respects with the Ontano
regulations.
The province accepts adequate flow-through sys-
tems on large vessels as an immediate interim solution.
However, Ontario has strongly urged the Federal gov-
ernment to activate as soon as possible a program of
total containment for commercial vessels.
The province has expressed a willingness to co-
operate in efforts to have installed shore reception
facilities for waste from commercial vessels in the event
that a no-discharge policy is adopted by the Federal
government.
For additional information contact the local Ministry
of the Environment office or write the Ontario Ministry of
the Environment, 135 St Clair Avenue, West, Toronto,
Ontario, M4V 1P5.
E-IO
JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
I
BOATING AND MARINA
REGULATIONS
INTRODUCTION
Ontario's Boating and Marina Regulations are
designed to protect and preserve the waterways of
Ontario for the use and pleasure of its citizens and
visitors.
Pleasure boat and marina operators have a
responsibility to meet the requirements which are
intended to prevent the overboard discharge of
sewage and garbage, and to provide for the proper
disposal of these wastes by land-based facilities.
BOATING REGULATION SUMMARY
1 Sewage in all pleasure craft, including
houseboats, must be retained in suitable
equipment.
2. Kquipment suitable for the purpose of the
Regulation includes:
(1) Retention devices with or without
recirculation features which retain all the
toilet waste for disposal ashore, and,
(2) Incineration devices which reduce to ash all
sewage and toilet wastes.
3. Suitable equipment shall he (1) non-portable,
(2) be constructed of structurally sound
material, (3) have adequate capacity for
extended use, (4) be properly installed, and
(5) in the case of storage devices be equipped
with the necessary pipes and fittings
conveniently located for pump-out by
shore-hased facilities (Although not specified a
pump-out deck Hi t mgwith 1V2 inch diameter
National Pipe Thread ,000 00 on a first offence and
$10,000.00 thereafter.
REGULATION TEXT
The following is the full text of the Boating
Regulation made under the Ontario Water
Resources Act.
DISCHARGE OE SEWAGE
EROM PLEASURE BOATS
1. In this Regulation,
(b) "pleasure boat" means a boat
used primarily for the
carriage of person or persons
for pleasure, whether on
charter or not, and whether
for compensat ion or not, and
includes a boat used on water
for living purposes;
(c) "sewage" means organic and
inorganic waste and includes,
fuel, lubricants, litter, paper,
plastics, glass, metal
cnnLliners, bottles, crockery,
rags, junk or similar refuse or
garbage and human
excrement, but does not
include,
(i) liquid wastes, free of
solids, from water used in
a pleasure boat for
household purposes, or
(ii) exhaust wastes, cooling
water and bilge water
from a pleasure boat,
(ca) "storage equipment" means
equipment of a design and
construction suitable for the
storage or the incineration
and storage of human
excrement in a pleasure boat
including such equipment
that is an integral part of a
toilet;
(d) "toilet" in relation to a
pleasure boat means
equipment designed and used
for defecation or urination by
humans.
2. No person shall discharge or
deposit, or cause or permit to be
discharged or deposited into any
water, sewage from a pleasure boat.
3. The owner and operator of every
pleasure boat in which a toilet is
installed shall ensure that, while
the boat is on the water,
(a) the boat is equipped with
storage equipment, and
(b) such toilet and storage
equipment are installed so as
to be non-portable.
5. The owner of a pleasure boat in
which a toilet or toilets and storage
equipment are installed shall
ensure that each toilet and the
storage equipment are installed so
that,
(a) the toilet and equipment are
connected in such a manner
that the equipment receives all
toilet waste from the toilet;
(h) equipment designed for the
storage of human excrement is
provided with a deck fitting
O
o id
3 CD
rt
H* rt-
3
c n
fD
o-
-------
and such connecting piping as
is necessary for the removal of
toilet waste by shore-based
pumping equipment,
(c) no means of removal of toilet
waste is provided other than
the means in clause (b);
(d) equipment designed for the
incineration and storage of
human excrement is supplied
with such electrical current or
other source of heat as is
necessary to reduce to ash all
excrement deposited therein,
and
(e) all parts of the system for
removal of toilet waste are
congruent with one another
and the boat.
HOW TO PREVENT AND
REDUCE POLLUTION
• Outboard motors should be kept tuned to the
manufacturer's specifications, and motors should
not be left idling at dockside.
• Care should be taken when refuelling portable
fuel tanks. They should be filled away from the
water. if possible, and should not be overfilled.
•The gas-to-oil ratio should be kept at the
manufacturer's recommended level. Excessive oil
in the fuel generates contaminants.
• Don't throw empty cans, bottles etc overboard.
Keep garbage properly contained until you roach
an onshore disposal site
• Muke sure that onboard sanitary facilities are in
good operating condition.
• Marina operators should ensure that fuel storage
tanks are not leaking and that caution is
exercised in the filling of fuel tunks on pleasure
boats.
TIPS FOR YOUR WATER SUPPLY
Although not covered by the Boating and Marina
Regulations, the safety of your water supply should
receive your careful consideration
If you have a fresh water tank aboard your boat,
refill this tank only from an assured safe supply
such as a municipal water system. Ifyou are in any
doubt as to t he .safety of the supply, you should boil
or chlorinate the water before use Furthermore, if
you suspect the purity of the water in the fresh
water tank, you should disinfect and flush the
fank. To do so. following this simple procedure:
Fill the tank with water to which has been
added one ounce of five percent sodium
hypochlorite (household bleach) for each
three gallons of water and leave it in the tank
for at least twelve hours Then drain the tank
and flush it throughly with water from a
supply known to be safe
If you carry water in containers for domestic use,
the first requirement is that the container be clean.
If the sanitary condition of the cleaned cont ainer is
in doubt, the procedure for disinfection outlined
above may be followed
The container itself should be distinctive in
appearance and should be constructed of a
non-corroding material, have a tight-fitting lid or
cover, and should not be used for any purpose other
than the storage of potable water. Clear labelling
of the container may prevent confusion,
particularly if you have guests aboard.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
If additional information is required contact the
local Ministry of Environment office or
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
135 St. Clair Avenue West
i Toronto, Ontario
M4V IPG
REGIONAL OFFICES
Ministry of the Environment Ministry of ihe Environment
Northwestern Regionnl
Office
435 .Inmea Street South
Thunder Bay P7E 6F.3
Ontario
475-1205
Northeastern Regional
Office
469 Bouchard Street
Sudhury P3E 2KH
Ontario
522-H282
Ministry of the Environment Ministry of the Environment
Southwest Hegiontil
Office
985 Adelaide Street South
I»ndon N8E IV3
Onturio
f.fll 3f,00
West Central Regional
Office
140 Centennial Parkway
North
Stoney Creek l«SK 3112
Ontono
501-7410
Ministry of the Environment Ministry of the Environment
(Ynlrol Regional OHice
150 Kerrand Drive
Hon Mill* M3C 303
Ontario
424-3000
W4
Southeastern Regional
Oftire
133 Dillon Street
Kingston K71, 4X(i
Ontario
549-4000
5M'I'78
BOATING ANH CARINA FhPIILATIONS
fc
%
O
O
3
3
C
ft)
O-
Ministry of the
Environment
Hon. Ceor^e R. flcCague
Min ister
K. H. Sharpe
JiJ Y'. -
-------
APPENDIX F
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES
A. SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE 1
B. ENGINEERING LITERATURE 4
C. POPULAR PRESS 6
D. STATE REGULATIONS LITERATURE 9
E. FEDERAL REGULATIONS LITERATURE F-10
F. MARKETING LITERATURE F-12
G. BOATING STATISTICS F-13
JRB Associates, Inc. '
-------
A. SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE
1. Arthur, J., et al., "Corporative Toxicology of Sewage Effluent
Disinfection to Freshwater Aquatic Life," U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory (EPA-600/3-75-
013), November, 1975.
2. Barbaro, R.D., et al., "Bacteriological Water Quality of Several
Recreational Areas in the Ross Barnett Reservoir," Journal of Water
Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 41, 1969 (p. 1330).
3. Bertges, W.C., Recreational Vessel Waste Pollution, U.S. Coast Guard,
NTIS //AD/A-000-453, June, 1974.
4. Brock, T.E., Biology of Microorganisms, 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1974.
5. Brungs, W.A., "Effects of Residual Chlorine on Aquatic Life," Journal of
Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 45, 1973 (p. 2180).
6. Chmura, G.L., and Ross, N.W., "The Environmental Impacts of Marinas and
Their Boats," Marine Advisory Service, University of Rhode Island,
Kingston, RI, 1978.
7. Collins, C., and Sedgwick, S., "Recreational Boating in Rhode Island's
Coastal Waters: A Look Forward," Marine Technical Report 75,
University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, October 1979.
8. Colwell, R.R., "Bacteria and Viruses - Indicators of Unnatural
Environmental Changes Occurring in the Nation's Estuaries,"
Conference on Estuarine Pollution Control, 1977 (p. 508) i
9. "Comparison of Total Coliform and Fecal Coliform Values in Shellfish
Growing Area Waters and a Proposal for a Fecal Coliform Growing Area
Standard," Proceedings of the 8th National Shellfish Sanitation
Workshop, 1974.
10. Davis, W.P., et al., "Effects of Chlorinated Seawater on Decapod
Crustaceans and Mulina Larvae," U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA No. 600/3-79-031, March, 1979.
11. Davis, W.P., and Middaugh, D.P., "Impact of Chlorination Processes on
Marine Ecosystems," Conference on Estuarine Pollution Control, 1977.
12. Davis, W.P., et al., "The Chemistry and Ecological Effects of
Chlorination of Seawater: A Summary of EPA Research Projects,"
National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA.
13. Dawson, G.W., et al., Determination of Harmful Quantities and Rates of
Penalty for Hazardous Substances, Volume II - Technical
Documentation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA-400/9-75-005-b, October, 1974.
JRB Associates, Inc.-
F-l
-------
14. Dondero, N.S., et al., "Salmonella in Surface Waters of Central New York
State," Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Vol. 33, No. 4,
April, 1977 (p. 791).
15. Faust, M.A., "Contribution of Pleasure Boats to Fecal Bacteria
Concentrations in the Rhode River Estuary," Chesapeake Bay Center
for Environmental Studies, Smithsonian Institution, Edgewater, MD,
1979.
16. Galstoff, P.S., "Reaction of Oysters to Chlorination," Research Report
II, 1945.
17. Garreis, M.J., et al., "Marina Impact on Water Quality in Kent Island
Narrows, Maryland," Environmental Health Administration, Maryland
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 1979.
18. Hocutt, C.H., et al., Power Plants Effects on Fish and Shellfish
Behavior, Academic Press, New York, NY, 1980.
19. Joklik, W.J., and Willett, H.P., Microbiology, 16th Edition, Appleton-
Century-Crofts, New York, NY, 1976.
20. Kelch, W.J., et al., "Modeling Techniques for Estimating Fecal Coliforms
in Estuaries," Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, May,
1978 (p. 862).
21. Kidd, D.E., "Bacterial Contamination of Lake Powell Waters: An
Assessment of the Problem," NTIS, PB 261-682, December, 1975.
22. Lardis, A., and Geyer, A., "Biodegradation of Shipboard Wastewater in
Collection, Holding, and Transfer Tanks," David W. Taylor Naval Ship
Research and Development Center, U.S. Department of the Navy,
78/041, January, 1978.
23. Mack, W.N., et al., "Pollution of a Marina Area by Watercraft Use and
Indicated by Coliform and Chemical Concentrations," NTIS, PB
200-622, 1971.
24. Mattice, J.S., and Zittel, H.E., "Site Specific Evaluation of Power
Plant Chlorination, Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation,
Vol. 48, 1976 (p. 2284).
25. Mattice, J.S., et al., "Chemistry and Effects of Chlorine in Aquatic
Systems: A Selected, Annotated Bibliography," Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, March 1976.
26. Missouri Basin Region Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
"Pollution of Navigable Waters by the Operation of Watercraft in the
Missouri Basin," NTIS, PB 260-146, March, 1967.
27. Panel on Treatment and Disposal of Vessel Sanitary Wastes, "Treatment
and Disposal of Vessel Sanitary Wastes," National Academy of
Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Maritime Information
Committee, 1971.
F-2
JRB Associates, Inc.—
-------
28. Nixon, S.W., et al., "Ecology of Small Boat Marinas," Marine Technical
Report Series No. 5, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, 1973.
29. Pelczar and Reid, Microbiology, 3rd Edition, McGraw Hill Book Co., New
York, NY, 1972.
30. Raytheon Company, "Rhode Island Areawide Water Quality Management Plan -
Marinas Task," prepared for Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program,
January, 1978.
31. Rheinheimer, G., Aquatic Microbiology, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., London,
1974.
32. Seabloom, R.W., "Bacteriological Effect of Small Boat Wastes on Small
Harbors," College of Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle,
WA, July, 1969.
33. Smith, E.M., et al., "Role of Sediment in the Persistence on
Enteroviruses in the Estuarine Environment," Applied and
Environmental Microbiology, April, 1978 (p. 685).
34. Stewart, K.R., et al., "Drug-Resistance Transfer in Escherichia coli in
New York Bight Sediment," Marine Pollution Bulletin, 1980.
35. Stone, R.W., et al., "Long-Term Effects of Toxicants and Biostimulants
on the Water of Central San Francisco Bay," Sanitary Engineering
Research Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA, May,
1973.
36. Wetzel, R.G., Limnology, W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, PA, 1975.
37. Zillich, J.A., "Toxicology of Combined Chlorine Residuals to Freshwater
Fish," Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 44,
February, 1972 (p. 212).
F-3
JRB Associates, Inc.^—
-------
B. ENGINEERING LITERATURE
38. Ackinson, O.J., and Graves, R.E., "Study of a Marine Sanitation System
Operating on Saline Water," National Maritime Research Center,
Galveston, TX, May 1974.
39. Bartley, C.B., et al., "Disposal of Vessel Wastes: Shipboard and
Shoreside Facilities, Phase One: Blackwater," Environmental
Research Group, Inc., U.S. Department of Commerce, Maritime
Administration, February 1979.
40. Bartley, C.B., and Titcomb, A.N., "Disposal of Vessel Wastes: Shipboard
and Shoreside Facilities, Phase Two: Graywater," Environmental
Research Group, Inc., U.S. Department of Commerce, Maritime
Administration, July, 1979.
41. General Dynamics, Inc., "Storage of Wastes from Watercraft and Disposal
at Shore Facilities," Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water Quality, April, 1970.
42. Gluekert, A.J., and Saigh, P.A., "Onshore Treatment System for Sewage
from Watercraft Retention Systems," National Environmental Research
Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-670/2-75-007,
March, 1975.
43. Information Concepts, Inc., "A System for Estimating Recreational Boats
and Their Sanitation Facilities in the United States," prepared for
the Environmental Protection Agency, 1971.
44. Mackenthun, K.M., The Practice of Water Pollution Biology, U.S.
Department of the Interior, 1969.
45. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill,
Inc., New York, NY, 1979.
46. Monogram Industries, Inc., "Progress Report: Solving the Problem of
Pollution from Pleasurecraft Through the Retention of Wastes on
Board for Disposal at Shoreside Pump Stations," Redondo Beach, CA.
47. Rimkus, R.R., et al., "MSD Systems for Solids Handling: Six Options,"
Water and Sewage Works, December, 1978 (p. 31).
48. Robins, J.H., and Green, A.C., "Development of On-Shore Treatment
Systems for Sewage from Watercraft Waste Retention System," National
Environmental Research Center, Office of Research and Development,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-670/2-74-056, July, 1964.
49. Stinson, J.W. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Technology Transfer
Seminar/Workshop in the Application of Pollution Abatement
Technology to Local Governments, held at the U.S. Naval Academy,
Annapolis, MD, October 16, 1974, sponsored by the David W. Taylor
Naval Ship Research and Development Center.
IRR Associates, inr
F-4
-------
50. Turney, W.G., "Control of Pollution from Pleasure Boats," Journal of
Water Pollution Control Federation. (Undated reprint used.)
51. U.S. Department of Commerce, "Shipbuilding and Repair," U.S. Industrial
Outlook, 1976.
52. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, "Fate and
Transport of Hazardous Constituents," Background Document, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, Appendix B, 1980.
F-5
JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
C. POPULAR PRESS
53. Alig, G.C., "Marine Sanitation Devices," Yachting, April, 1978 (p. 96).
54. Bottomley, T., "Head Law Primer," Motor Boating and Sailing, February,
1978.
56. Bruce, Grady, "Recreational Boating: Problems and Prospects," presented
at 2nd Annual National Conference, National Marine Manufacturers
Association, Scottsdale, Arizona, October 26-29, 1980, in brochure
New Horizons.
57. Burdick, W., "Unnecessary, No Benefits, Senate Told," MRAA Newsletter,
June, 1980.
58. Clark, T., "Additions to MSD Fact Base," Cruising World, November, 1980.
59. Crawford, J., "The Toilet Fiasco," Sail, October, 1979.
60. Crickmer, B. ,' "Regulation" How Much is Enough?", Nation/s Business,
March, 1980.
61. Day, G., and Brennan, B., "Readers Speak Out on MSDs," Cruising World,
October, 1980.
62. Emanuel, K., "MSDs: Protection from Ourselves," Sail, July, 1978.
63. German, M., "Sea Grant '80, A Project Outlook," Marine Resource
Bulletin, Vol. XIII, No. 1, Spring, 1980.
64. Hart, D., "Flushing Out the Facts," Motor Boating and Sailing, December,
1979.
65. Hummel, S.D., "High Pollutin'," Soundings, February, 1981.
66. Johnson, K., "Maryland Clamping Down on Pump-Out Issue," Soundings,
January, 1979.
67. Johnson, K., "MSDs: No Miracle at Marathon," Boating, June, 1970.
68. Krause, K., "Getting A-Head," Motorboat, July, 1979.
69. Malone, J., "Boating's New Laws," Miami Herald, February 24, 1980.
70. Matheson, G., "From W.C. to Shining Sea," Pacific Yachting, June, 1980.
71. McKernan, W.J., "Poo Poo Boo Boo," Motor Boating and Sailing, May, 1980.
72. Mueller, P., "On Patrol with the Coast Guard Auxiliary," Lakeland
Boating, January, 1981.
73. Phillips, N., "Gov't in the Head," W.O. News, December 12, 1980.
JRB Associates, Inc.'
F-6
-------
74. Pittman, F., "MSD's - The Problem Is Under Our Noses," Lakeland Boating,
January, 1981.
75. Ragland, S., Jr., "Additions to MSD Fact Base," Cruising World, 1980.
76. Rath, D., "Parting the MSD Waters a Little," Boating, June, 1978.
77. Schwartz, R., "Is the MSD Waiver Forever?," Boating, November, 1978.
78. Sharp, D., "A Head by Any Name," Motorboat, March, 1978.
79. Sieck, M., "Boating Guide to Marine Sanitation Devices," Boating,
October, 1979.
80. Snellings, B., "New Marine Sanitation Rules Due," New Orleans Picayune,
December 26, 1979.
81. Spurr, D., "The Shellfish Gambit," Cruising World, August, 1980.
82. Sullivan, D., "Marine Sanitation: How to Comply," The Work Boat,
February, 1978.
83. Tuttle, B., "MSD Critics Head for Congress," Soundings, December, 1980.
Author Unidentified
84. "Alternatives Suggested for Boats Lacking Space for MSDs," Boating
Industry, November, 1979, The Boating Industry, Inc., New York, NY.
85. "A.W.O. Progress Report," The Work Boat, June, 1976, H.L. Peace
Publications.
86. "Boat Owners Decision Due on Anti-MSD Suit," Soundings, August, 1980.
87. "Boat Owners Left to Hold Their Own," Soundings, September, 1980.
88. "CG Plant Inspection of Marine Heads," Marine and Recreational News,
May 16, 1980.
89. "Clean Waters - A Common Sense Approach to Marine Sanitation," The
Boating Industry, Vol. II, December, 1975.
90. "Coast Guard Officers Report Plans for MSD Enforcement," The Boating
Industry, November, 1979, The Boating Industry, Inc., New York, NY.
91. "Hard Times Come to Environmentalists," U.S. News & World Report,
March 10, 1980.
92. "MSD Foes Dealt Setback," Soundings, September, 1980.
93. "NFB Meets in Ohio," Inter/Port, Marex, National Marine Manufacturers
Association, October 20, 1980.
F-7
JRB Associates, Inc.^—
-------
94. "New Regulations Tighten U.S. Grip on Vessel Sewage Discharges," Marine
Engineering Log, June, 1978.
95. "Recreational Boating Costs Plenty Study Shows," The Work Boat,
December, 1980.
96. "Rum Bay Shares Sanitation Dilemma," Go Boating, March, 1977.
97. "Sea Guide: The HEAD-Ache for Midwestern Boatmen," Sea, Inland Edition,
February, 1979.
98. "Some MSD Waivers May Be Granted," The Boating Industry, November, 1979.
99. "Strong Gains for 1976," The Boating Industry, January, 1976.
100. "The Boating Business - 1975," The Boating Industry, January, 1976.
101. "The MSD Problem is Coming to a Head," Connecticut Maritime Trades
Association, Inc., October, 1980.
102. "USCG Steps Up MSD Boat Checks," The Boating Industry, November, 1980.
103. "What's A 'Head' in '80," Pleasure Boating, March, 1980.
104. "Virginia Head Regs," Marine Resource Bulletin, Virginia Institute of
Marine Sciences, Spring, 1980.
105. "Virginia State Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Pump-Out Facility Case,"
Intercom, National Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers, New
York, NY, July 5, 1979.
106. "Waiver Set on Type II MSD's for Pleasure Boats," Intercom, April 6,
1978.
F-8
JRB Associates, lnf~
-------
D. STATE REGULATIONS LITERATURE
107. Letters from States to Reginald Dean, Executive Director, National
Marina Association, in reply to request for information on States'
handling of purapout requirements for new marinas.
108. "State Boat Registrations, 1968-1978," Marex Marketing Committee,
International Marine Expositions, Inc., 1979.
109. "Summary of State Laws Governing Watercraft Waste Disposal," Boating
Industries Association.
F-9
JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
E. FEDERAL REGULATIONS LITERATURE
110. U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, "Wastes from Watercraft - Report to the Congress of
the United States," Senate Document 90-48, August 7, 1967.
111. Zener, B.S., "The Federal Law of Water Pollution Control," in Federal
Environmental Law, edited by Dolgin and Guilbert, West Publishing
Co., St. Paul, MN, 1974.
U.S. Coast Guard Documents
112. "Boating Safety, Circular 19," U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S.
Coast Guard, February, 1975.
113. "Federal Marine Saniation Device Regulations," U.S. Department of
Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard, CG 485 also CG 485 (Rev. 6-78).
114. "Federal Requirements for Recreational Boats," U.S. Department of
Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard, CG 290, July, 1976.
115. "Marine Engineering Regulations, Subchapter F," U.S. Department of
Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard, June 1, 1973.
116. "MSDs, A Comprehensive Guide to the New Marine Sanitation Device
Regulations," U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard,
Boating Safety Detachment, 03-3.
Federal Register Notices
117. January 30, 1975, _40_:4622, "Marine Sanitation Devices: Certification
Procedures and Design and Construction Requirements," U.S.
Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard.
118. October 10, 1975, 40:47972, "Notice of Proposed Rule-Making: Proposed
Amendment of 40 CFR 140," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
119. December 15, 1975, 40:58214, "Marine Sanitation Devices: Certifications
Granted," U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard.
120. January 26, 1976, 41:4452, "Marine Sanitation Devices: Standards of
Performance," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
121. April 12, 1976, 41:15324, "Amendments of 33 CFR 159," U.S. Department of
Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard.
122. January 3, 1977, 42:11, "Amendments to Holding Tank Certification," U.S.
Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard.
123. February 3, 1977, 42:6730, "Marine Sanitation Devices: Certifications
Granted," U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard.
124. November 28, 1977, 42:60619, "Marine Sanitation Devices: Waiver of the
Type I MSD Installation Date," U.S. Department of Transportation,
U.S. Coast Guard.
IRR Associates, Inc.
F- 10
-------
125. July 10, 1978,, 43:29637, "Marine Sanitation Devices: Waiver of Certain
Requirements for Vessels of 65 Feet in Length or Less," U.S.
Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard.
126. February 4, 1981, _46:10723, "Removal of Bis-(Chloromethyl) Ether (BCME)
from the Toxic Pollutant List Under Section 307(a)(1) of the Clean
Water Act," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
F-ll
JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
F.
MARKETING LITERATURE
127. "Annual Distribution Merchandising Survey - 1975," Boat and Motor
Dealer, 1975-1976, Dietmeier-Van Zeven Publications, Inc.
128. "Boating's Outlook to Get Detailed Review at Conference," Inter/Port,
Marex, National Marine Manufacturers Association, September 15,
1980.
129. "Dealers Guide to Marine Sanitation," Boating Industry, August, 1979.
130. Marketing Report, February, July, and October, 1980, Recreational
Vehicle Industry Association.
131. "Pleasure Boating," Marine Buyer's Guide, 1975-1976, The Boating
Industry, Inc.
132. "Recreational Boats and Boating Products Market (U.S.), Report //A678,
Fall, 1979, Frost & Sullivan, Inc., New York, NY.
133. "The Buying Boatman," Boating, Publication of a Survey of Purchasing
Activity Among Reader Service Inquirers, February, 1978.
134. "The Marine Market," Marex Marketing Committee, International Marine
Expositions, Inc., April, 1978.
135. "U.S. Shipbuilding Outlook," Marine Engineering Log, Simmon-Boardman
Publications, June 15, 1975.
F-12
JRB Associates, Inc.
-------
G. BOATING STATISTICS
136. "Boating: A Statistical Report on America's Top Family Sport, 1980,"
Marketing Services Department, Marex, Chicago, IL, and New York, NY.
137. "Boating Registration Statistics, 1978," National Marine Manufacturers
Association, (Marex), Chicago, IL.
138. "Boating Registration Statistics, 1979," National Marine Manufacturers
Association, (Marex), Chicago, IL.
139. "Boating Statistics, 1979," U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S.
Coast Guard (Comdtinst M 16754.1), May 1, 1980.
140. "Recreational Boating in the Continental United States in 1973 and
1976," U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard, Report
No. CG-B-003-78, March 1978.
141. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1980, 101st Edition, U.S.
Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, 1980.
142. "The Growth of Selected Leisure Industries," Department of Commerce,
Industry and Trade Administration, May, 1979.
143. Transportation Energy Conservation Data Book, Edition 3, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, 0RNL-5493.
144. Waterway Guide 1980, Waterway Guide, Inc., Annapolis, MD, 1980.
145. 1977-1979 Boat Sales Data from Boat and Motor Dealer, Statistics and
Research Department, Dietmeier-Van Zeven Publications, Inc.,
December, 1979.
F-13
JRB Associates, Inc.
------- |