BoatUS Alert: Boaters need to participate in EPA forums

[Cathy Monaghan]

I received the following email from Boat U.S. Government Affairs and I thought I'd pass it on.

===========================

April 4, 2011

Dear BoatU.S. Member,

The U.S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) is developing future clean boating requirements for all recreational boats in the next few months, and they need to hear from you. During April, they are hosting weekly "webinars" to solicit boater input (April 6 - 6 pm, April 14 - 8 pm, April 22 - 10 am, and April 25 - 12 pm; all eastern time). I'm writing to encourage you to participate in one of these online events.

For more information on the webinars and to register in advance (which is required): http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguida ... cipate.cfm

A specific list of proposed requirements is not yet available. We do know that sewage will not be discussed or covered - it's part of a different law. EPA is looking at several broad categories of vessel discharges:

Antifouling paints and zincs
Graywater (from showers and sinks)
Bilge water (with concern about oil and grease, which is already illegal to discharge)
Cleaning products/maintenance practices
Disposal of garbage and fishing waste
Transport of invasive species
We need you to help EPA know that any new mandatory "management practices" must be based in science, and should be reasonable, practical, and economical. You should share with EPA the clean boating practices that you already employ, or that can be easily adopted within your boating. For ideas:
http://www.boatus.com/foundation/cleanwater/

For additional information on this topic from BoatU.S. go to:
www.boatus.com/gov/cba/

You may also submit questions, comments or concerns directly to CleanBoatingAct-HQ@EPA.GOV before June 2, 2011.

For more info from EPA:
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguida ... /about.cfm

It is crucial that EPA hear from a variety of boaters on this topic. We hope you can tune into one of these sessions so that EPA can gain your perspective.

Many thanks for being a BoatU.S. Member!

Margaret Podlich
Vice President, BoatU.S. Government Affairs
GovtAffairs@BoatUS.com
703-461-2878 x8363
BoatUS.com/Gov

[Jim Davis]

I attended the 3/18 "Listening Session" in Annapolis. Below is the description I did for the Chesapeake Bay Alberg 30 Association. If you can go it is worthwhile.


First let me state it was poorly noticed. The first warning I got was from Boat/US addressed to Maryland Boaters. Perhaps it was in magazines, but I sure didn't see it. Unfortunately if you can't attend a session in Annapolis, the only way to comment is by email or snail mail.
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguida ... cipate.cfm

There were about 50-60 in attendance. Mostly worried about EPA's purpose and all the rumors that have been flying around. Marina crackdowns on things like boat cleaning have added to the concern. One man I talked with said he wasn't allowed to clean his own boat on Spa Creek because of run off. Not really the whole story, he was overreacting to rumor control, citing non-existent Maryland regulations.

The EPA folks did a nice job of explaining the Clean Boating Act (see link below) and why they have to develop regulations. They seem to be using common sense and not planning to go overboard, or price boating out of existence with massive retrofits. They say the rules will be simple, easy to follow and cost effective. They referenced the various state pamphlets on clean boating as what they are looking at. The Maryland voluntary program is one they referenced as an example.
http://www.dnr.maryland.gov/boating/cle ... ources.asp California was also referenced http://www.coastal.ca.gov/ccbn/Environm ... ochure.pdf

They stressed that the end product will apply to all states and US waters, but they also conceded that State/Local jurisdictions can go beyond the Federal rules.

Enforcement will be by the USCG and where authorized State/Local marine police. I specifically asked about individual citizens enforcing by filing civil law suits as allowed under the Clean Water Act. I was told that the Clean Boating Act restricts enforcement to the USCG (State/Local), not to individuals. I asked this question specifically thinking about the Puget Sound Keepers Association and what has been called vigilante tactics (lurking about marinas and filing Civil Lawsuits against individuals and marinas for perceived violations of the Clean Water Act).

All other discharge rules will remain in place and are unaffected by the Clean Boating Act. This includes: sewage, oil and fuel spills, plastic, garbage and trash.

It looks like final rule making will be 2012/13 and probably 2014 before it goes into affect. First EPA has to write the Rule, then the USCG has to take the Rule and convert it into a Regulation. Of course there will be public comment periods at each stage.

All in all An interesting evening and the EPA folks did listen, how much they heard may be a different story. Most of the attendees were totally confused as to the state of regulation and rumor lead the individual testimony. There was also a fair amount of "off topic" complaining. While this was clearly environmental the session was devoted to pleasure boats, not chicken farmers, lawn care and sewage treatment plants. While I agree with these sentiments, the EPA folks were from a different branch of EPA.

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguida ... UMP_526474
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguida ... UMP_526512

and Boat/US http://www.boatus.com/gov/

Bottom line I am reminded of Ronald Regan's comment about the scariest words in the English language "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help." Yes I did say that in my testimony.

[bill2]

I'd prefer not to jump in over my head and this might ( or might not ? ) be considered a bit political .

However lacking any precedents - leastways that I can recall - I figure I'll start up a - hopefully calm - discussion with some talking points to get started. These definitely are not researched and just jumped out - so I most surely want to be able to retract any and all of the following when confronted with real hard science. That said here goes .

And I may just have to register to put my two cents in . . .

antifouling paint/zincs
My first thought is that this may be penny wise and pound foolish - ie does the epa propose to " ban " antifouling paint/zincs while " allowing " ( agricultural and other ) runoff to create huge " dead " zones in our lakes streams and coastal waters ? That said a reasonable modicum of regulation on what goes into antifouling paint/zinc by manufacturers when taken along with comprehensive clean water measures from all pollutants could be an alternative.

graywater from showers/sinks
First question that comes to mind is to define the difference between a soapless shower and a swimmer/surfer at the beach . Are they both to be " regulated " ? if not - why not ? ? ? And as to showers or sinks with soap my first thought would be to approve " soap " ( biodegradable ? ) that then must be used - kinda like unleaded gas or ultralow sulphur diesel is required to operate a vehicle by epa/manufacturers to meet emissions. I'm thinking that something like castille soap would work - which brings up the next point - testing and approval to be done by epa at epa's expense - no running up the price because epa has bug up their b^)&* . Of course the easy way out would be to blanket approve " biodegradable " soap .

bilge water
Make it illegal to discharge oil/grease overboard - oops - been there done that. Maybe this should exempt boats under say 50 feet - and therefore it would include commercial freighters and such. ( uh oh - OJ do we need this to be upped to 86' to cover cd85 hull #1 ? )

Cleaning products/maintenance practice
make it the manufacturers responsibility to get approval of products from epa - which , like above, includes testing and approval at epa's expense - or take the easy way and give blanket approval for " biodegradable " products .

garbage and fishing waste
Garbage - dispose of at home/marina while fishing waste - has epa heard of recycling - back to where it came from sounds fine to me.

transport of invasive species
operator error - owner is responsible for cleaning their boat thoroughly between different bodies of water sounds reasonable.

Well a hastily crafted reply - but something to get a discussion started - methinks. My apologies for trying to use common sense ( ? ) instead of common science .

In closing I do like Jim Davis' saying
"
Bottom line I am reminded of Ronald Regan's comment about the scariest words in the English language "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help." Yes I did say that in my testimony.
"

[Oswego John]

Hi Bill,

How about I cut two feet off the bowsprit? Think that would work?

Nice post. Plenty of food for thought.

Hey, are you coming north this summer?

Later,
O J

[Carl Thunberg]

All good points, and well thought out. Just a couple thoughts to add to the conversation.

Whether we choose to admit it or not, we all negatively impact our environment. Every time we wash our dishes at anchor we leave an underwater plume of soap, bits of food, etc. In small doses, the environment can deal with that. Multiply that by a million boats, and we have a problem.

All soaps are at some level biodegradable. It's the presence of phosphates that creates problems.

Bilge water poses real problems for us, and the environment both. I've seen some bilges that are sparkling clean, but sadly those are the exception. I'm wondering if there might a technological solution to this one, like an in-line sorbent pad in the bilge pump discharge to remove oil. The fact is, we do need to pump our bilges out or the boat will eventually sink.

The problem with fish waste is, the fish are seldom cleaned out at sea. If they were, then by all means, return the fish waste to the environment. Instead, fish waste gets concentrated in harbors. When concentrated fish waste gets dumped in harbors, it creates a huge oxygen demand for de-composition, and the oxygen levels decrease to dangerous levels.

I guess the moral of the story is, we all need to be vigilant of our footprint, whether it be carbon, or biological. The more we participate and be part of the solution, the better off we will all be. EPA has a duty to protect the environment, and so do we.

[MFC]

Bottom line I am reminded of Ronald Regan's comment about the scariest words in the English language "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help." Yes I did say that in my testimony.

Not to pick on Jim (and I certainly appreciate the report) but I want to say: I for one am unflichingly grateful for what the EPA has done in its brief history. From regulating acidic leaded gas emissions which had encrusted and blackened the urban buildings where I live to regulating the agricultural and mining runnoff which were destroying all life in the waterways where we sail to countless other accomplishments -- my life and my country would be appreciably different without the EPA.

Matt

[Jim Davis]

And please don't get the impression I am coming down on EPA. As I see it there are too many "standards", or pseudo ones. These are compounded by rumor and the simple fact that no one knows what will happen. I would actually like one standard that covers all navigable waters as long as it is reasonable, appears to be workable and easy for everyone to follow. We don't need different standards in every State or community. Nor would we want unworkable, or expensive ones. I think it is also important that the enforcement is clearly defined as USCG and other Law Enforcement that has the authority to enforce USCG Regulations.

In the brochures I referenced there are many simple common sense things that we can all do and generally get along with. This seems to be their start point. The racing crowd may not like restriction on cleaning their ablative paint, but otherwise the impact won't be too onerous.

Note that all the current restrictions: oil, heads, garbage, trash and plastic remain in place.

The areas that seemed to worry most most of the attendees were things like: graywater, bottom paint, zincs, would soap still be allowed to clean the deck. The example of graywater could lead to adding additional tankage just to handle it. In my own case I would have to convert a water, or fuel tank - I just don't have any extra room for another tank.

As I said, they implied that they were looking at common sense and practical solutions. They were not looking at making it expensive.

Also note that OJ's CD85 is not covered by this action. His fleet of Typhoons is. The Clean Boating Act is directed specifically at non-commercial pleasure boats. The commercial vessels are covered by other legislation.

All I want is to keep Pleasure in pleasure boating.

As Cathy's original message points out, the time has come to at least voice your own views to EPA. Then at least if it doesn't come out the way you wanted, you have earned the right to complain.

[rorik]

My marina here in Tacoma WA as of last spring no longer allows the use of any cleaning products on the exterior of the boat other than water or vinegar. Failure to comply means losing your moorage, even if you live aboard. They cite potential repercussions from the state Dept of Natural Resources and local environmental groups like the Puget Sound Keeper Alliance ( they've filed, I believe, roughly 4 dozen lawsuits in the last 5 years against marinas and boat shops).
During the warmer months, especially on the weekends, we have environmentalists in little dinghies, trespassing in marina waters, making sure we aren't using soap, etc.

There is a bill in the WA legislature that will ban copper bottom paint. It will most likely be law soon.

http://threesheetsnw.com/blog/archives/15717

If a particular amendment to the bill gets added, and it probably will, the law will only apply to recreational boats under 65' in length.
Millionaires, military and commercial will be exempt.
The Port Townsend Tenants Union (liveaboards, mostly on wooden boats) put together a position paper in response. The information they've gathered and listed at the end of the paper is very interesting.
And I will be very surprised if EPA hasn't seen the information listed but will ignore it and move on with their "goals".

http://ptsail.org/2011/02/20/moorage-te ... paint-ban/


What will your reaction be if EPA thinks my states new law should be the new federal standard?
What if EPA doesn't just stop there?
Will the USCG be enforcing the "no soap, no copper paint, et al" rules?
Will it be part of their safety inspection?
Will it be just a fine, like in WA, of $10,000 a day per instance?
Or will it be a confiscatory situation like a meth addicts car?

Don't laugh... it's not funny anymore....

[Oswego John]

Is Boraxo, a cleaning agent made with borax, environmentally safe?

I've been using borax for cleaning since Hector was a puppy. I have never heard any bad word about using it.

Just wondering,
O J

[rorik]

http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Pro ... _NR=057125

[j2sailing]

chi-ching. chi-ching. Beware of the EPA or any other government agency enforcing more laws on boaters. Once they get started, they will not stop here, but continue to impose more laws. Boaters as a whole are incredibly respectful of the environment compared to the enormous amount of pollutants dumped in by factories and farm chemical runoff.

[Jim Cornwell]

I participated on Wednesday evening, hanging in there for about an hour, until I the Q&A became repetitive and tedious. I agree with earlier posts that the efforts of the EPA to improve water quality are a very good thing with noticeable impact and I think it's been an appropriate undertaking for the federal government. But I was a little troubled by the insistence of the presenter on the narrow focus of the CBA. He waved away listeners' concerns about pollution from all sources except those on board boats - it's his assignment, I guess. I hope that the legislation that one day results from this effort keeps things in balance - and avoids hysteria. It's a little hard to credit that fish cleaning debris from sport fishermen represents an environmental threat, for instance. Where is it imagined those guts go if the fish dies a natural death? And I'd like to see the evidence that in the Chesapeake, where I sail, all the pollutants from all the recreational boats all season long compare with the contribution of the mighty Susquehanna River during a single rain event. I think we should all insist on a full disclosure of the science before recreational boaters (and the marinas we rely on) are singled out for regulation because we're more convenient to police than big agriculture and the perfect lawn industry.

[Duncan]

... It's a little hard to credit that fish cleaning debris from sport fishermen represents an environmental threat, for instance. Where is it imagined those guts go if the fish dies a natural death?...

Or, relative to sanitation regulations, when was the last time you saw a fish wearing a diaper?

(I am Canadian, so I am sort of a bystander to these discussions, but developments here often end up linked or harmonized to yours, so I am keeping my eyes open).

I, personally, couldn't agree more with your patient and sensible tone BUT I suspect we are too idealistic about the prospects of logic prevailing in the wider world. On the contrary, I think that small groups without organization, money and lobbying power often have to resort to political theater to get noticed (e.g. the environmental vigilantes patrolling Puget Sound marinas, the PETA-style advocates making disgusting displays for television, and so on).

I just can't picture sailors getting involved in this sort of thing, so I fear that we will be saddled with ridiculous regulations that end up driving people out of sailing, and encouraging marinas to sell out to the condo developers.

[Joe CD MS 300]

I'm wondering if maybe as an organization we shouldn't offer up our comments both as a group and individually to the EPA. I am all for keeping the water clean but hopefully the EPA is concentrating its efforts where it would do the most good.

If they are thinking about mandating the use of environmentally friendly and biodegradable soaps that enter in grey water, yes. A holding tank for grey water, no.

Mandating the use of oil absorbent materials in bilges, yes. Some type of water / oil separator system for bilges and pumps, maybe. A holding tank for bilge water, no.

Restrictions on disposal of garbage and trash, yes. However I don't consider the disposal of small amounts of natural vegetation and or food waste in the water to be a problem; such as an apple cores, onion skins etc. I won't dispose of anything in the water in a harbor but in a secluded anchorage those type items, yes. If that were to be determined to be a problem I wouldn't have a problem with stoping the practice secluded harbor or not.

[Oswego John]

It's a little hard to credit that fish cleaning debris from sport fishermen represents an environmental threat, for instance. Where is it imagined those guts go if the fish dies a natural death? And I'd like to see the evidence that in the Chesapeake, where I sail, all the pollutants from all the recreational boats all season long compare with the contribution of the mighty Susquehanna River during a single rain event. I think we should all insist on a full disclosure of the science before recreational boaters (and the marinas we rely on) are singled out for regulation because we're more convenient to police than big agriculture and the perfect lawn industry.

I would like to add that there are companies whose main purpose is to grind up fish waste for use mostly in the sport fishing industry.

These charter and party fishing boats buy the ground up fish in five gallon buckets and dole it out as chum, to attract fish to the area. Hundreds of gallons of ground up fish are dumped into the water daily whereverpeople fish on a large scale.

Another subject I would like to mention, that northerners are familiar with, is the run-off of road salt used on streets and highways to melt ice and snow. I'm talking about hundreds of TONS each season. Eventually, this salt runs downhill to our lakes, bays and oceans. This and agriculture run-off should be considered in the overall picture.

My $.02
O J