wrote:
Del Cecchi wrote:

wrote in message
groups.com...

JimH wrote:

wrote in message
egroups.com...

JimH wrote:

You can't.

http://www.boatus.org/onlinecourse/R...ect/info4c.htm


Jim, you just posted a link to a site that *contradicts* your point!

Direct quote from your link:

Type One MSDs are treatment systems that reduce bacteria and
discharge
no visible floating solids.

(Not legal in some state boating areas as well. Check local laws
before
installing. Type One MSD systems, such as a head coupled with a
Lectra-San, are legal on vessels less than 65 feet that boat in an
area
not declared a Federal No-Discharge Zone.


The fact is that *properly treated* waste can be discharged in any
waters not designated a no-discharge zone.

You are correct regarding untreated waste. It cannot be discharged
in
inland waters or less than three miles offshore.


Sorry if I misinterpreted it. I read the table under Sewage System
Options
to say that it was illegal for Type I or II to discharge even treated
waste
in inland lakes.

Perhaps I need a lesson from Peggy on the fine art and operation of
Type I
and II systems. I have always had either Type III or portable
systems.

I have never discharged my waste water tank in the past regardless of
how
many miles off shore I was.

Regardless, I would not think it would ever be advisable to dump
treated or
untreated waste into the water systems in inland lakes.


Part of that depends, I think, on the inland lake in question. If
you're going to create a brown haze with even a legal discharge in a
1-acre duck pond, I'd personally recommend not. Same with dockside in a
marina, regardless of the body of water in question. But Lake Superior?
Maybe a different matter.

Riddle me this, (since you live back there in lake country). When the
local sewage utility collects and treats flush water from houses (and
boats) in your community, what does it do with the liquid volume
following treatment? If you don't know, you might want to look into it.
I'd personally be very surprised if your sewage treatment plant doesn't
drain right back into the same body of water upon which a lot of people
boat. (Sometimes back into a stream of water from which people
downstream actually drink!) The only difference between waste that is
properly treated on board to meet the federal standards and then dumped
back into the waterway and waste that is pumped out, directed to the
municipal sewage plant, treated to meet the federal standards and then
dumped back into the waterway is where it's treated- not whether.


That last statement is utterly and completely untrue. Check the
standards for wastewater treatment, secondary and tertiary. Here in
Rochester, the discharge from the sewage plant is arguable cleaner than
the river it goes into. One can not say that for finely ground
sterilized stuff from any treatment on a boat. Municipal treatment first
settles the solids, then treats the liquid with an activated sludge
process to remove organic pollutants. In some places it is further
treated to remove Phosphorus. Only then is it discharged.


I don't think phosphorus is a big problem in human waste. Isn't that
more typically a component of detergents, etc? I'm on a low-detergent
diet and avoid drinking it as much as I'm able to resist. :-)

OK. Now that your municipal sewage plant has extracted the solids from
the waste water, what does it do with them? Extracted doesn't mean
disappeared, only separated. If Minnesota is like most states, it hauls
the solids out into the woods and dumps them into the forest, where
they soon wind up back in the water table, anyway. Do they still sell
Milorganite? That stuff was all the solids from the sewage treatment
system in Milwaukee, Wisconsin bagged up in plastic bags and sold as
household fertilizer. Despite the warnings on the bags, people were
using it in vegetable gardens and then ingesting high concentrations of
all the heavy metals that were originally in the Milwaukee sewers.


Here is the regulation for Minnesota...
Under state law, toilets on board vessels must be no-discharge devices
(see exceptions below). Waste must be retained on board for proper
disposal after returning to shore. If you have a recreational vessel with
installed toilet facilities, it must have an operable marine sanitation
device (MSD) on board......Type I and II USCG-certified
treatment/discharge marine sanitation devices are currently legal on the
Mississippi River below Lock and Dam #2 (at Hastings) and on Lake
Superior. This is a result of the federal preemption of state law. MSDs
on boats less than 65 feet in length must be USCG-certified Type I or II.

del cecchi


Well, there you go. You challenged me to let you know just where you
could dump properly treated sewage within the state boundaries of
Minnesota, and you have found a very specific answer.


As far as treatment standards go, here's an independent study from down
in New Zealand that concludes that, when working properly, a Type I
treatment system reduces pathogens and viruses in discharged human
waste to a level "that does not present a danger to human health".

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/...port-jun02.pdf

Depending on where you live, there is a very real chance that sewage
taken to a pump out station will not be treated at all. Particularly if
it's raining. We often have sewage overflows of
several million gallons into Lake Washington, Lake Union, and Puget
Sound- (but only during our infrequent rainstorms). :-) Every boater
in the Pacific NW could move aboard, crap merrily away and flush
directly overboard for 20 years without putting as much crud into the
water as the sewage overflow during a single heavy rainstorm---*but*
that doesn't mean that we should. It does mean that legal, effective,
and proper on-board sewage treatment is a very responsible alternative
to pumping out.

http://www.metrokc.gov/health/hazard/cso.htm#whatis


Oh, yeah. One other important thing. All those chemical de-odorizers
and "holding tank treatments" the typical boater dumps down the head to
try and control the smell? Those are some of the deadliest chemicals
you could imagine. Formaldehyde is among the mildest of the ingredients
used. Some of those holding tank chemicals are so strong that they have
been shown to seriously impair the proper biological function of a
municipal sewage treatment plant when pumped into the local system. All
of those deadly poisons will flow through the sewer plant and back into
the waterway, or be dumped out in the forest to eventually get back
into the water table anyway. Use of a Type I treatment system minimizes
the need to use these horrible poisons. To be fair, proper installation
and maintenance of a holding tank also minimizes the need to use the
horrible poisons, but the reality is that the wickedly deadly stuff is
flying off the shelf at thousands of pints per summer weekend acrosss
the US.

Read all about how waste from a holding tank treated with deodorizers
and other chemicals can screw up the treatment of thousands of gallons
of general sewage at:

http://www.blm.gov/nstc/resourcenotes/rn38.html


If you want to hold it and pump it into the municipal sewer system,
fine with me. But there is no basis for a position that proper
operation of a Type I system in an area not otherwise designated a
"no-discharge" zone is a less responsible choice.


The sludge is disposed of only on sites that are determined to not allow
it into the ground water, not just "dumped in the forest". Why do you
have such an attachment to the notion that it is somehow superior to
dump sterilized sewage into the water than to treat it? I will agree
that the ocean seems to have the capability to deal with the organic
material with little or no adverse effects. The same is not true of
many freshwater lakes and rivers, which is all we have here in Minnesota.

And since when did the actions of a government entity determine what the
responsible choice is? One can think of examples, for example was Fort
Ord running their raw sewage outfall pipe out into Monterey Bay a
"responsible choice"? It wasn't prohibited by any regulation.

If holding tank treatment solutions are such a problem, why aren't the
plant operators working to get them prohibited? After all, they have to
meet the standards.

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”