Sewage discharges vs. pumping overboard

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Are you implying that I pump wastes into anchorages? I take umbrage if that is your intention :angry:

Nope, just being rhetorical (unlike your implication that I didn't see what I clearly saw). Sorry about your seal problem. Dratted do-gooders . . . . :rolleyes:
 
So nobody is using the pumpout stations and nobody is pumping overboard. Where is all that poop going?
 
So nobody is using the pumpout stations and nobody is pumping overboard. Where is all that poop going?
It is entirely possible a proportion of what is legally pumped out into land based sewerage systems is returned to the water, untreated, by the sewerage processing authorities.
Like many anti pollution measures, land based boat sewage collection is just tinkering at the edge of the problem. We generate more waste and heat than the planet can accept. The solution rests with people,not with government. Spin it any way, but increasing population increases waste and increases pollution.
 
From kirkusreviews.com which describes Mowat's Sea of Slaughter;

With dogged industriousness--and to devastating effect--Mowat chronicles what has happened to the major native bird, fish, and mammal species of the north Atlantic and subarctic coasts of North America since the European arrival.

Most are (or were) heavily insulated cold-water species, originally distributed in dense local populations that presented splendid targets to early cashers-in on the boom in ""train oil"" (rendered blubber from whales, walruses, seals, and even a few birds such as the great auk).

The point that human predation was the prime cause of today's pitifully reduced populations (or extinctions) may seem obvious, but Mowat finds it to have been shamefully fudged by authorities who should know better. The Canadian Fisheries and Oceans Department comes in for repeated brickbats: justifying seal ""culls"" and the destruction of cormorants for the supposed protection of fish populations that the Department's own quotas have allowed to be fished to the verge of commercial extinction; enthusiastically supporting boondoggles like a 1950s Newfoundland-based scheme to ranch mink on a diet of pilot whales; dragging its collective feet on most international attempts to limit the slaughter of great whales.

Much of the book's value lies in Mowat's attempts to document estimated death tolls and establish historical territorial ranges in order to corroborate the scope of the disaster. Thus he shows that what are called polar bears were once widely distributed over much of the North Atlantic mainland as far south as the Gulf of St. Lawrence (and possibly Delaware Bay); he recounts the little-known decimation of the Eastern buffalo by hunters and explores in the forest east of the Appalachians decades before the Mayflower got to Plymouth. (A pity this material is not footnoted, though there is a fair-sized bibliography.)

Mowat's repeated accounts of slaughter are necessarily monotonous, and it's not his habit to ponder shifting cultural attitudes or suggest practical middle ground between commercial and conservationist courses. What he has produced is one single-minded and savage howl of outrage, ultimately convincing by the very repetitiveness of the evidence.
 
Nope, just being rhetorical (unlike your implication that I didn't see what I clearly saw). Sorry about your seal problem. Dratted do-gooders . . . . :rolleyes:


No doubt here about what you saw. But much doubt that it originated from an anchored vessel as you proclaim :ermm:
 
Last edited:
No doubt here about what you saw. But much doubt that it originated from an anchored vessel as you proclaim :ermm:

If a toilet like say a vacuflush was rigged to discharge directly overboard, I think it is entirely feasible. As is the possibility someone of inventive mind, to save all potential waste issues, (for them at least), deciding to go back to a bucket over the side method..? I suspect many small boats may well resort to this most basic of methods, even in an anchorage, sadly.
 
If a toilet like say a vacuflush was rigged to discharge directly overboard, I think it is entirely feasible. As is the possibility someone of inventive mind, to save all potential waste issues, (for them at least), deciding to go back to a bucket over the side method..? I suspect many small boats may well resort to this most basic of methods, even in an anchorage, sadly.

Right you are, Pete! Since being challenged on the provenance of this t**d, I have given it considerable thought. To your list I'd also add the time-honored method of hanging off the swim platform or just going for a swim.

In retrospect, I really wish I'd calculated the current, wind drift and other vital data so as to track it back to its source. I might then have obtained the vessel's registration number . . . and perhaps even a picture . . . to substantiate my claim. At least I'd have known where to send the doctor bills.

:D
 
Put me in the minority. Several years ago I was snorkeling in an anchorage and saw some brown torpedoes and used TP floating by. Soon after I was in the fetal position and stayed that way for most of my vacation.

Sounds like you were in rough shape, Angus. I feel for you.
Here's a tune that comes to mind.

Intensive Care by the Bondi Cigars - a Sydney band who got there name from something that is found in the water at Bondi Beach when the sewage treatment plant isn't operating properly.



 
Great groove, AusCan . . . and two lefties! Are they related? Glad you explained the name; I'd never have pieced that one together.

Thanks!
 
...the Bondi Cigars - a Sydney band who got there name from something that is found in the water at Bondi Beach when the sewage treatment plant isn't operating properly...
Aka "blind mullet". Mullet is a brownish colored fish.
Some say those who swim at Bondi, swim "undeterred".
 
This without doubt is a murky subject.

Down in our part of the world, we have the same issues that Pete has up in Queensland. Legislation with no government back up to enable anyone to comply.The government agency is well aware of the situation in Pittwater, yet ignores the issue.

I'm with AusCan & others on this, we should try to restrict our impact as much as we can, government regulation not withstanding.

Personally I don't like holding tanks, I would prefer to have a reasonably simple on board treatment system with an overboard discharge. I would think the average trawler would not be required to treat much black water in any 24 hour period, so the system should be relatively easy to install.The trick is to get the authorities to agree on a standard system. To me that is the problem.
 
Costs me $20 a month for someone to pump out the black tank once, thus keeping the drain closed.

 
Last edited:
It is entirely possible a proportion of what is legally pumped out into land based sewerage systems is returned to the water, untreated, by the sewerage processing authorities.
Like many anti pollution measures, land based boat sewage collection is just tinkering at the edge of the problem. We generate more waste and heat than the planet can accept. The solution rests with people,not with government. Spin it any way, but increasing population increases waste and increases pollution.
I've said it many times, the only way to get rid of pollution is to get rid of the humans. This planet would do just fine without humans.


For humans to remain, we have to accept a certain amount of pollution.
 
.................... I would prefer to have a reasonably simple on board treatment system with an overboard discharge. I would think the average trawler would not be required to treat much black water in any 24 hour period, so the system should be relatively easy to install.The trick is to get the authorities to agree on a standard system. To me that is the problem.

No, the problem is that there's no simple treatment system. You can but systems for about $1500 but they take up space and use a lot of electrical power. And local governments in some areas have outlawed their use anyway even though their output is cleaner than most city treatment systems.
 
WesK

If we rid the planet of all humans how would anyone know what was accomplished? Besides who would protect the seals, manatees, bald eagles and snail darters? LOL
 
Well, since you mentioned it....

No, the problem is that there's no simple treatment system. You can but systems for about $1500 but they take up space and use a lot of electrical power. And local governments in some areas have outlawed their use anyway even though their output is cleaner than most city treatment systems.

I happen to have a TDX "treatment" system on board my newly acquired boat, This in addition to a holding tank.

I have exchanged a couple of emails with Mansfield about the system, They were kind enough to send me a manual and from what I gather, The systems intended purpose is to collect the nasties, chemically treat them and then pump/discharge the collective 10 gallons or so of materials directly overboard via a thru hull.

This is legal?
 
Since 1980 it has been illegal to discharge raw sewage into the continental waters of the US. Reverting back to a bucket is only acceptable so long as you do not dump the bucket overboard. It is illegal to dump a bucket of sewage overboard.

A TDX system is a USCG Type 1 treatment system. USCG approved treatment systems may discharge waste in the continental waters except in NDZs. The NDZs restrictions only apply to boats with USCG approved treatment systems. If you are travelling into or through an NDZ, you will have to discharge the output of your TDX to a holding tank and hold it until you leave the NDZ or have it pumped out.
 
A TDX system is a USCG Type 1 treatment system. USCG approved treatment systems may discharge waste in the continental waters except in NDZs. The NDZs restrictions only apply to boats with USCG approved treatment systems. If you are travelling into or through an NDZ, you will have to discharge the output of your TDX to a holding tank and hold it until you leave the NDZ or have it pumped out.

Thank you.
 
Since 1980 it has been illegal to discharge raw sewage into the continental waters of the US. Reverting back to a bucket is only acceptable so long as you do not dump the bucket overboard. It is illegal to dump a bucket of sewage overboard.

A TDX system is a USCG Type 1 treatment system. USCG approved treatment systems may discharge waste in the continental waters except in NDZs. The NDZs restrictions only apply to boats with USCG approved treatment systems. If you are travelling into or through an NDZ, you will have to discharge the output of your TDX to a holding tank and hold it until you leave the NDZ or have it pumped out.



Fine for harbors and anchorages and large commercial vessels. It is this foolishness that changes law abiding citizens.........ones who care about the environment into lawbreakers. And just because radicals get ridiculous laws past does not mean people will obey. Think prohibition generating bootleggers and criminals! :angry:
 
Last edited:
The prohibition against dumping raw sewage has been on the book for 37 years. We have all been living with it and managing it in our own way for 37 years Some of us live on the coast and can take a "3 mile Cruise." The only new issue is the proliferation of NDZ which will only impact those boaters who have installed a USCG approved treatment device.
 
A TDX system is a USCG Type 1 treatment system. USCG approved treatment systems may discharge waste in the continental waters except in NDZs. The NDZs restrictions only apply to boats with USCG approved treatment systems. If you are travelling into or through an NDZ, you will have to discharge the output of your TDX to a holding tank and hold it until you leave the NDZ or have it pumped out.


Just a small point. You can hold -> treat -> discharge, but you can't treat -> hold -> discharge.
 
I'd be happier without it,

My thinking is that if you can get cited for an unsecured WYE valve then the next thing coming down the policy pipe will be having a chemical treatment system aboard (active or not). Soon as I can I'll be getting rid of it since there is really no use or purpose for it. The simpler I can keep things, the better.
 
The prohibition against dumping raw sewage has been on the book for 37 years. We have all been living with it and managing it in our own way for 37 years Some of us live on the coast and can take a "3 mile Cruise." The only new issue is the proliferation of NDZ which will only impact those boaters who have installed a USCG approved treatment device.


Yes, "we" have all lived with it for 37 years but that does NOT mean the law was obeyed! And as to the 3 mile limit...........WHAT A JOKE at least here on the Massachusetts seacoast. It is a 20+ mile one way shot to comply with the law.


The URL for my coastal regions is shown below. AND DO CHECK THE MILEAGE SCALE shown it.

http://prj.geosyntec.com/npsmanual/nodischargezones.aspx
 
Just a small point. You can hold -> treat -> discharge, but you can't treat -> hold -> discharge.

Yes, technically this is correct. The Groco Thermo pure is one system which takes the "hold" in the holding tank and treats it and releases it when you are out of the DNZ. But for most other systems they treat it directly so you end up treating and holding. To be perfectly in compliance that treated sewage in a holding tank must be pumped out at a pump out station.
 
It seems accepted that, if you pee overboard, instead of peeing in a receptacle and emptying it overboard,there is no offense.
The mental picture may be unattractive, but if someone hangs their butt overboard and lets nature take its course, is that an offense (excluding of course any offense against decency)?
 
BruceK

As explained to me by the authorities at Ft. Jefferson, if the human waste does not go into a vehicle but goes directly into the sea there is no violation. Others may know the written law.
 
Yes, and direct passing waste into the ocean is worse because it is not macerated
 
Back
Top Bottom