Boston to ban boaters from harbor dumping
By Noah Bierman, Globe Staff
Boston today will become the largest urban area in the country to prohibit boaters from dumping out their toilets in the harbor, city and federal officials said.
Environmental managers hope a new federal ban will keep beaches and harbor islands cleaner, improve shellfish stocks, and protect the multibillion-dollar efforts to scrub the harbor of pollutants. City and state environmental planners have been working on the new rules, affecting waters within about 3 miles of the shoreline, for years. Before granting approval, federal regulators wanted to make sure there were enough facilities for boats to pump out onboard tanks.
"People have come back to the harbor, and we want to make sure that they stay here," said Jim Hunt, chief of environment and energy for the City of Boston.
The Environmental Protection Agency will announce its approval of the rule change at a press conference today, said David Deegan, a spokesman for the agency. Enforcement will begin immediately. Violators can be fined up to $2,000.
Previously, San Diego had been the largest urban harbor to enforce a "no discharge area," which affects commercial and recreational boaters, according to Hunt and Deegan.
An estimated 8,700 boats dock in the Boston area, and about half of those boats have onboard toilets, or heads.
Outside of New England and parts of California, most cities and states allow boaters to dump sewage near the shore if they have onboard treatment systems. It has long been illegal to dump untreated sewage in waters close to shore. The new rule makes it illegal to dump any sewage within the shoreline boundary.
Cruise ships and other large vessels generally dump their waste out at sea, a practice that will remain legal.
Many boaters are accustomed to having their tanks cleaned either at docks, or by pump-out boats. There are 35 pump-out facilities in the area, with four more on the way.
Recreational boaters usually know where to find facilities to get their toilets pumped, a service that is often free, said Leona Roach, executive director of the Massachusetts Marine Trades Association, which represents marinas and boatyards, and supports the ban.
"Every time I get gas, I have them pump out my head," said Charles Karyanis, 62, a car dealer who keeps his 32-foot Sea Ray, "Julia Rose," docked at Marina Bay in Quincy. "I just tip the guy."
Another boat owner at Marina Bay, Mark McDonough, 49, supports the ban. But he questions whether it will be tough to enforce.
"I can press a button here" to discharge the toilet without detection, he said, pointing to a switch next to the helm of his boat.
Still, McDonough hopes most boaters will obey. "They need something. I've been out here for 20-something years and remember when the water out here was all black," he said.
Deegan said New England states and cities have led the nation in creating no-discharge areas.
Authorities along most of the coast - from Maine through Connecticut - have sought to impose the bans in the past few years. The EPA has granted many of the petitions; others are pending, he said. Cape Cod Bay's petition could be approved by the end of the summer, he said.
Boston's ban extends from Winthrop to Hull. The Coast Guard and local harbormasters will have the authority to enforce it, though officials say educating boaters will be key. "For the most part, a lot of the boaters do the right thing," Hunt said. "This is just making sure that this practice is regulated."
Karyanis and his wife, Susan, were getting ready yesterday to take their young granddaughter and grandson to Spectacle Island and then to the North End for dinner.
"I've got grandchildren, and I don't need to see discharged heads floating," Karyanis said. "It disgusts me."
Noah Bierman can be reached at nbierman@globe.com.
Are you in favor of the ban? Or not? Let us know in our comments section below.
Comment
Permalink
Email
what part of......it's about time!!!.....are you kidding me. I thought this was alraedy against the law.....any politician that does not vote for this is an idiot.....
Impossible to enforce!! Why even bother.
Now that Massacusetts has cleaned up the harbor and established strict rules for shoreline septic, this seems like the next logical step. Our tax dollars have paid to clean up the harbor, so we all have an interest in this. Given that appears to be a low cost issue for boat owners, hopefully compliance will be high.
Your facts are wrong!! It has been illegal to dump or discharge raw sewage within 3 miles of the United States coastline since 1972. That includes Boston Harbor! Anyone who has been discharging untreated sewage in Boston Harbor has been doing it illegal.
This excerpt comes directly from the EPA website and has been in effect for years:
“Can untreated sewage be discharged from vessels (with installed toilets) into rivers, lakes, estuaries, or coastal waters?”
“No, unless the boat is more than 3 miles from shore in coastal waters. Vessels with installed toilets may not discharge treated or untreated sewage into freshwater lakes, freshwater reservoirs, or other freshwater impoundments whose entrance point(s) and exit point(s) are too shallow to allow these vessels to enter or leave. These waters are no-discharge zones for vessel sewage under 40 CFR 140.3(a)(1). That prohibition also includes freshwater lakes bordering two or more states whose entrance point(s) and exit point(s) are too shallow to allow vessels subject to these regulations to enter or leave. Rivers that do not support interstate traffic by vessels subject to this regulation are no-discharge zones under 40 CFR 140.3(a)(1). In contrast, under 40 CFR 140.3(a)(2) the waters where a Coast Guard approved marine sanitation device permitting discharge of sewage is allowed (unless the waters have been designated as a no-discharge zone for vessel sewage) include: coastal waters and estuaries, the Great Lakes and their inter-connected waterways, fresh-water lakes and impoundments accessible through locks or other secondary waterways, and other flowing waters that are navigable interstate by vessels.”
This change affects the type of devices that treat the sewage before it is discharged. There are certain Marine Sanitation Devices (“MSD”) that treat the sewage prior to being discharged. They treat waste in several different ways, including the use of chemicals, to reduce the bacteria count. There are two types of MSD; MSD Type I and MSD Type II. Type II MSD’s are cleaner then Type I, which is much cleaner then dumping untreated waste. Boats with these types of devices were allowed to discharge within three miles of the coastline. Very few boats have these types of devices (they are cost prohibitive and unneeded if you pump-out). Most boats have holding tanks that have to be pumped out, or they must travel 3 nautical miles offshore to discharge waste. Along the Massachusetts coast, there are even sticker federal restrictions and no dump zones that exceed the 3-mile rule. You cannot discharge waste into Cape Cod Bay or in Stellwagon Bank National Marine Sanctuary area, which is 20 miles offshore. If boaters are following the current/past rules and regulations, then this law will have little effect.
Your article gave the impression that most boaters discharge their raw waste into the harbor and that is the farthest thing from the truth. The few boaters who do discharge “treated” waste, using either MSD Type I or Type II treatment device, are probably discharging cleaner treated sewage then Deere Island! Do your research next time and write the complete story. Read beyond the mayor’s press release!
Hey Rich Bolton, Jr.,
Easy with all the !!!'s. Maybe you and I read a different article, but this article seems to be very specific about the changes to the regualtions regarding treated discharge. The article states:
"Outside of New England and parts of California, most cities and states allow boaters to dump sewage near the shore if they have onboard treatment systems. It has long been illegal to dump untreated sewage in waters close to shore. The new rule makes it illegal to dump any sewage within the shoreline boundary."
The facts seem right, and it seems like a well researched and complete story to me...
The lead paragraph and the majority of the article makes it appear as if it is currently legal and a common practice to discharge raw sewage into Boston harbor. The truth is revealed some six paragraphs later in a single sentence.
The number of non-commercial vessels equiped with a sewage treatment system is vanishingly small. Only super-yachts have the space and budget.
The article's premise that recreational boaters are responsible for polluting Boston harbor is untrue. It is the article that stinks.
I am SHOCKED to learn that after all the work done to clean up this harbor, that this very important element was overlooked/neglected/not enforced. Perhaps new legislators/city government is in order...
This is unbelievably stupid.
-Dumping raw sewage in the harbor has been illegal for years
-I would guess that less than 1% of the 8700 boats have a sewage treatment system that would be effected by this law. These systems are expensive and rare in small boats.
-The water was *not* black 20 years ago.
Want to do something real? Ban the millions of gallons dumped after every rain storm, the hundreds of dogs pooping on the beachs and ending in the harbor and the enormous amount of phosphates from all the fertilized lawns and golf courses near the rivers and shoreline.
But it's much easier for manipulative politicians to claim credit for useless pandering rather than addressing real issues that might annoy voting constituents. And where's the press on this issue? Mindlessly repeating this nonsense rather than investigating the science.
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
contributors
Recent Blog Posts
browse this blog
by categoryRelated Blogs
Organizations
Information Sources
INside Boston.com