    Water Quality: Program Enhancements Would Better Ensure Adequacy
    of Boat Pumpout Facilities in No-Discharge Zones (24-MAY-04,
    GAO-04-613).

    Clean Water Act regulations generally prohibit boats from
    discharging untreated sewage but allow the discharge of treated
    sewage using certified marine sanitation devices. The act allows
    states to designate "no-discharge zones"--areas in which vessels
    are prohibited from discharging any sewage--if the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) finds that adequate facilities exist in
    such zones for the removal and treatment of sewage from vessels.
    In some cases, such as for drinking water intake zones, EPA makes
    the designation. As requested, this report assesses (1) EPA's
    process for determining the adequacy of facilities to remove and
    treat sewage in proposed no-discharge zones; (2) the extent to
    which EPA and the states ensure that adequate facilities remain
    available after designation; (3) the extent to which the Coast
    Guard and the states enforce discharge prohibitions; and (4)
    various effects of no-discharge zones, as identified by EPA,
    states, and localities.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-613
        ACCNO:   A10220
      TITLE:     Water Quality: Program Enhancements Would Better Ensure
    Adequacy of Boat Pumpout Facilities in No-Discharge Zones
         DATE:   05/24/2004
      SUBJECT:   Environmental monitoring
    	     Outdoor recreation
    	     Pollution monitoring
    	     Sewage disposal
    	     Water pollution control
    	     Water quality
    	     State-administered programs
    	     Boating

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-04-613

    Report to the Honorable Jim Saxton, House of Representatives

    May 2004

    WATER QUALITY

    Program Enhancements Would Better Ensure Adequacy of Boat Pumpout
    Facilities in No-Discharge Zones

    Contents

    Tables

    Figures

    May 24, 2004Letter

    The Honorable Jim Saxton House of Representatives

    Dear Mr. Saxton:

    The number of recreational boats in the United States increased from
    nearly 8 million in 1977 to approximately 13 million in 2002. With the
    increase in boating, there has been a corresponding rise in the potential
    for sewage from boats to damage water quality generally and to harm
    sensitive areas such as shellfish beds and beaches. Waters in sheltered
    areas where boats congregate, such as harbors and marinas, are
    particularly susceptible to sewage accumulation because water in these
    areas may not circulate as freely as in the ocean and other
    well-circulating waterways.

    Under the Clean Water Act, the discharge of both untreated and treated
    sewage from boats is generally banned in bodies of water that cannot be
    navigated by interstate vessels. In waterways that can support interstate
    vessel traffic-such as the coastlines, the Great Lakes, and many rivers
    and lakes-Clean Water Act regulations prohibit boats from discharging
    untreated sewage within 3 nautical miles of U.S. territory but generally
    allow the discharge of treated sewage that meets EPA treatment standards.
    The act requires that boats with installed toilets be equipped with
    systems, called marine sanitation devices, that either treat and discharge
    sewage into the water or hold untreated sewage until it is removed. EPA
    has established standards of performance for marine sanitation devices,
    and the Clean Water Act generally prohibits states from establishing their
    own standards. It does, however, authorize them to designate "no-discharge
    zones"-areas in which vessels are prohibited from discharging any sewage,
    whether treated or untreated, under certain circumstances.1 The Clean
    Water Act provides for U.S. Coast Guard and state enforcement of the
    provisions of the act governing marine sanitation devices.

    The first no-discharge zones were established in 1975, and currently there
    are 59 no-discharge zones in 23 states (see app. I). The Clean Water Act
    authorizes state-designated no-discharge zones in which states may
    completely prohibit the discharge of sewage from all vessels into certain
    state waters if the state determines that the protection and enhancement
    of the quality of those waters require greater environmental protection
    and EPA determines that adequate facilities are reasonably available for
    the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels in
    the proposed no-discharge zones. The required facilities include devices
    that remove sewage from holding tanks on boats-known as pumpout
    facilities-and are generally located either on a dock, where boats pull up
    to use them, or on pumpout boats, which travel to boats to empty the
    holding tanks. When the areas to be protected involve drinking water
    intake zones or other "special protection areas," such as wildlife
    sanctuaries, Clean Water Act regulations require states to apply to EPA
    for the designation but do not require a determination that adequate
    facilities are available. In these cases, EPA rather than the states may
    officially establish the no-discharge zones (federally designated
    no-discharge zones) via a final rule in the Federal Register, while the
    states establish the zones in all other cases (state-designated
    no-discharge zones). Of the 59 no-discharge zones, only 3 are federally
    designated. Thus, most of the no-discharge zones are designated by states
    following determinations by EPA that the areas had adequate pumpout
    facilities.

    Some boaters have raised questions about the condition and availability of
    pumpout facilities in some no-discharge zones, generally those that
    encompass larger areas. In addition, some boaters have questioned the need
    for no-discharge zones, contending that vessel discharges constitute a
    relatively small portion of water pollution and that improved marine
    sanitation devices could treat waste to levels that exceed water quality
    standards. On the other hand, some federal, state, and local officials
    question the performance of marine sanitation devices over the number of
    years they may be used; point out that vessel discharges can concentrate
    in or near shore areas; and say that even minimal amounts of pollution
    near beaches and shellfish beds, for example, can harm sensitive marine
    life or cause disease.

    As agreed with your office, this report (1) evaluates EPA's process for
    determining whether states have adequate facilities for the safe and
    sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from boats in proposed
    no-discharge zones, (2) assesses the extent to which EPA and the states
    ensure that adequate pumpout facilities remain available after a
    no-discharge zone is designated, (3) evaluates the extent to which the
    Coast Guard and the states enforce compliance with the prohibition against
    vessel sewage discharges in no-discharge zones, and (4) identifies the
    effects of no-discharge zones that EPA, states, and localities have
    reported.

    Unless otherwise specified, this report focuses on the no-discharge zones
    that the states designate because 56 of the 59 zones as of March 2004 were
    state-designated zones.  2 We studied 12 of the 23 states that have
    established no-discharge zones: California, Florida, Maryland,
    Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Rhode
    Island, Texas, and Utah. Our criteria for state selection included that
    states be geographically dispersed; be located in coastal, noncoastal, and
    Great Lakes locations; and have a range of no-discharge zone designation
    dates, among other factors. We reviewed the requirements for designating
    no-discharge zones, pumpout facility monitoring, and enforcement in
    statutes, regulations, and federal guidance, as well as criteria developed
    by EPA regions. We interviewed and obtained documents from officials in
    EPA's regional offices and agencies in the selected states to evaluate the
    basis of no-discharge zone designations, and we collected pumpout
    monitoring data. We interviewed and collected data from officials at the
    Coast Guard and state law enforcement agencies to determine the extent of
    enforcement for these states. Finally, we identified surveys and
    interviewed EPA, state, and local officials to determine what effects of
    no-discharge zones have been identified in the selected states. Appendix
    II provides additional details on our scope and methodology. We conducted
    our review from July 2003 through May 2004 in accordance with generally
    accepted government auditing standards.

    Results in Brief

    EPA's process for determining the adequacy of facilities for boat sewage
    in proposed no-discharge zones allows EPA to make general estimates of
    facility needs-such as a general ratio of the number of pumpouts needed
    for the number of boats in the area-but has some limitations. For example,
    EPA requires states to identify in their applications for no-discharge
    zones the number of pumpout facilities in the proposed zones and the
    number of boats operating there. However, EPA does not require other
    information that could be used to develop site-specific estimates of
    facility needs, such as information on the sizes of boats in the area and
    the number of boats estimated to have holding tanks that require pumpout
    facilities. While EPA guidance states that such information would help the
    agency make informed and balanced decisions, EPA requests but does not
    require this information and thus does not consistently obtain it.
    Further, EPA generally makes its determinations without conducting site
    visits to the facilities identified in the applications to ensure, for
    example, that the facilities are accessible and functioning. Finally,
    while EPA's determination process consistently requires states to provide
    information on the number and location of pumpout facilities to address
    the sewage disposal needs of boaters with installed toilets, it does not
    consistently require information on the number and location of facilities
    known as dump stations that are needed by the many boaters who use
    on-board portable toilets.

    We found no EPA and limited state oversight of pumpout facilities after
    the no-discharge zones are established. The Clean Water Act does not
    address the monitoring or oversight of pumpout facilities in established
    no-discharge zones nor does it define a role for EPA after it has
    determined that pumpout facilities are adequate in proposed no-discharge
    zones. Nonetheless, the continued adequacy of pumpout facilities in
    no-discharge zones is essential so that boaters can comply with the sewage
    discharge prohibitions. Over time, pumpout facilities may become
    inadequate if some pumpout owners do not keep the existing pumpouts in
    working order or if pumpout facilities do not keep pace with boat
    populations. Of the 12 states we reviewed, we found 2-Michigan and
    California-that had formally reevaluated the adequacy of facilities in
    no-discharge zones. In both cases, the states found a need for more
    facilities. California found other problems as well, such as poorly
    maintained equipment. While some localities appear to provide effective
    monitoring and oversight of pumpout stations in no-discharge zones, EPA
    and the states cannot be assured that such monitoring is occurring
    consistently in the absence of effective federal and/or state oversight.

    While the Clean Water Act grants the Coast Guard authority to enforce in
    all no-discharge zones, under its regulations the Coast Guard generally
    limits its enforcement of the discharge prohibitions to areas where
    discharges are specifically prohibited by EPA regulations-currently the
    three federally designated no-discharge zones-and does not enforce
    discharge prohibitions in the state-designated zones. EPA and state
    officials were generally not aware of the Coast Guard's regulatory
    limitation of its enforcement authority. Enforcing discharge prohibitions
    is inherently difficult, but EPA and others agree that some enforcement
    presence is important for encouraging boater compliance. States can
    enforce discharge prohibitions under the Clean Water Act or they can enact
    their own discharge prohibitions for no-discharge zones, and the states we
    reviewed enforce prohibitions against discharge in a variety of ways and
    to varying degrees. Enforcement tools used by states include citations for
    illegal discharges, dye tablets in marine sanitation devices to identify
    leaks or illegal discharges, and inspections of marine sanitation devices
    to ensure that they are secured against discharges. In some cases, states
    place greater emphasis on boater education than enforcement. We found that
    local enforcement of the discharge ban, such as by harbormasters and
    marina owners, may also take place.

    Although few data are available, EPA, state, and local officials report
    that water quality and environmental stewardship have increased following
    designation of no-discharge zones. States and localities value
    no-discharge zones as a part of comprehensive plans to improve water
    quality, such as the water quality improvement plan for the Chesapeake
    Bay. However, because it can be difficult to link water pollution to
    specific sources or water quality improvements to specific programs,
    quantifying the effect of no-discharge zones versus other pollution
    control programs is problematic. As a result, some state and local
    officials cite proxy measures, such as the number of gallons of sewage
    pumped from boats through pumpout facilities, as evidence that
    no-discharge zones help protect water quality. Along with the water
    quality benefits, some state and local officials say that no-discharge
    zones have fostered a sense of environmental stewardship among boaters and
    marina owners and have encouraged them to take concrete steps to protect
    sensitive waters. Additional perspectives on the effects of no-discharge
    zones, as well as other issues, may be provided by a recent EPA survey of
    boaters, marina owners, state officials, marine sanitation device
    manufacturers, and laboratories that test marine sanitation devices.
    Results of this survey have not yet been published.

    We are making five recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of the
    no-discharge zone program. For example, we are making recommendations that
    would help ensure that EPA consistently collects and verifies information
    to develop site-specific estimates of the pumpout and dump station
    facilities needed and that mechanisms are developed to ensure the ongoing
    adequacy of such facilities. We are further recommending that EPA and the
    Coast Guard (1) meet with relevant states to review enforcement roles in
    the state-designated no-discharge zones, (2) determine whether current
    enforcement is adequate, and (3) clarify the respective enforcement roles
    in EPA and Coast Guard guidance and, if appropriate, revise federal
    regulations.

    Background

    As discussed above, for navigable waterways, the Clean Water Act generally
    allows the discharge of treated sewage that meets EPA standards but
    prohibits boats from discharging untreated sewage into waters within 3
    nautical miles of U.S. territory. States wanting to establish no-discharge
    zones in which both treated and untreated sewage is banned generally must
    demonstrate in written applications to EPA that adequate facilities are
    reasonably available for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of
    sewage from vessels in the potential no-discharge zones. In 1976, EPA
    issued a regulation that established the information requirements for
    state applications to EPA for no-discharge zone determinations. In 1984,
    the authority to make determinations regarding the no-discharge zones in
    their respective regions was delegated to EPA's 10 regional offices.3 EPA
    Region I and EPA headquarters developed additional guidance for states and
    localities in 1991 and 1994, respectively.4 Region I and headquarters
    guidance documents are generally consistent in terms of application
    information requirements; however, Region I's guidance is more specific in
    some areas and also places greater emphasis on obtaining some additional
    information in support of the applications.

    EPA, in accordance with the Clean Water Act, requires that states certify
    the need for the no-discharge zones being sought. Thus, while EPA
    guidelines request that states provide EPA information in support of the
    need for no-discharge zones, EPA does not make a determination regarding
    the state's position that the no-discharge zones are needed. EPA's
    regional offices review state applications to determine whether adequate
    facilities are reasonably available for the safe and sanitary removal and
    treatment of sewage from vessels in the potential no-discharge zones.
    Before issuing final decisions-called determinations-on the adequacy of
    the pumpout facilities, the regional offices generally seek public
    comments via a notice in the Federal Register. The final decision is also
    published in the Federal Register. As discussed above, in most cases,
    EPA's determination, based on the information provided by the states in
    their applications, addresses the adequacy of the facilities and
    authorizes the states to establish the requested no-discharge zones. Eight
    of the 12 states we reviewed formally designated the no-discharge zones
    with state laws.

    Seven of the 23 states with no-discharge zones have statewide no-discharge
    zones, which include most state waters.5 In the sixteen other states that
    have designated no-discharge zones, only specific bodies of water or parts
    of water bodies are included. As shown in figure 1, the 23 no-discharge
    zone states include:

    o all but two of the eastern coastal states

    o one western coastal state

    o four of the eight states bordering the Great Lakes

    o two states with coastal waters on the Gulf of Mexico

    o six inland states.

    Figure 1: No-Discharge Zones

    aWith the exception of certain fresh waters into which the overboard
    discharge of sewage is prohibited by EPA regulations (40 CFR 140.3.)

    The earliest no-discharge zone applications were approved in 1975 and the
    most recent in 2003. (App. I provides more information on existing
    no-discharge zones, including the state where the no-discharge zone is
    located, the name of the water body, the type of designation, and the year
    of EPA's Federal Register notice.)

    Boats with installed toilets must be equipped with systems, called marine
    sanitation devices, that either treat and discharge sewage into the water
    or hold untreated sewage until it is removed. Under the Clean Water Act,
    EPA is to set standards of performance for marine sanitation devices to
    prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage from
    vessels into navigable waters. The U.S. Coast Guard is to provide
    certification of design, installation, operation, and material of marine
    sanitation devices. Three types of marine sanitation devices are certified
    by the Coast Guard: Types I and II treat sewage, typically through
    maceration and chlorination, and then release it through the hull into the
    water.6 Releases can be controlled by Y-valves-devices that allow
    through-hull discharges when in an opened position. In no-discharge zones
    where both treated and untreated sewage is prohibited, Y-valves must be
    closed and secured. The Type III marine sanitation devices are holding
    tanks that store but do not treat sewage. Type III devices can also be
    retrofitted with Y-valves that can permit release of untreated sewage
    through the hull when in an opened position. In addition, boats with Type
    I and Type II devices may also have holding tanks installed. The treatment
    standards for marine sanitation devices were promulgated by EPA in 1972
    and 1976.

    Many boaters, particularly those with smaller recreational vessels, rely
    on portable toilets, which are not installed in the vessel, to store
    sewage onboard. The contents of portable toilets are generally emptied
    into dump stations, which are designed to receive the waste and allow
    boaters to rinse out the portable toilet. Figure 2 shows a photograph of a
    dump station, in the bottom left corner, and a pumpout station, which is
    to the immediate right of the dump station.

    Figure 2: Pumpout and Dump Station in Channel Islands Harbor, California

    Funds for sewage removal facilities in no-discharge zones are not provided
    to states under the Clean Water Act; however, federal funds have been
    available to states under the Clean Vessel Act to construct pumpout
    facilities in many areas, including the no-discharge zones. Specifically,
    to help reduce pollution from vessel sewage discharges, the Clean Vessel
    Act has authorized funding to states for a program for the construction,
    renovation, operation, and maintenance of pumpout and dump station
    facilities. Using grants, this program has funded the construction of more
    than 2,700 pumpout and 1,800 dump station facilities-including many in
    no-discharge zones-according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which
    administers the program.7 The grant recipients-either public or private
    marinas-are required to ensure pumpout and dump station accessibility by,
    for example, making the pumpout facilities and dump stations available to
    all recreational vessels and charging reasonable fees. Under this program,
    the fees charged to boaters for pumpout services cannot exceed $5 unless
    justified before the grant proposal is approved.

    To implement its pumpout grant program, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    has developed guidelines8 for what constitutes adequacy of facilities for
    the removal and treatment of sewage from vessels that states may use to
    identify facility needs. Among other things, the guidelines provide states
    with technical information on the adequacy of and appropriate types and
    location of pumpout stations and dump stations. The Fish and Wildlife
    Service guidelines addressing the adequacy of facilities are broadly
    applicable and are neither limited to nor directed at no-discharge zones.
    The Fish and Wildlife Service developed its guidance in consultation with
    EPA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Coast Guard,
    coastal states, local municipalities, boat users, manufacturers of pumpout
    equipment, marina operators, conservation groups, and others, in a process
    that included seeking public comments on draft guidelines. Because of
    their broad applicability, the Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines
    represent a resource upon which the states and EPA may choose to refer in
    addressing and evaluating the adequacy of facilities in no-discharge
    zones. For example, the guidelines identify key factors that impact the
    demand for pumpout and dump stations that can be helpful to EPA and the
    states in considering the need for facilities in proposed no-discharge
    zones. EPA acknowledges the relevance of this guidance to the no-discharge
    program by citing it in its 1994 guidance.

    The Oceans Act of 2000 established a 16-member U.S. Commission on Ocean
    Policy for the purpose of assessing U.S. ocean policy and making
    recommendations for a new, comprehensive national policy. The commission's
    preliminary report, which was issued in April 2004, includes
    recommendations related to the approval of no-discharge zones, pumpout
    facility supply and maintenance, and marine sanitation device standards.
    The final report will be issued after the commission considers comments
    from the nation's governors and other interested parties.

    EPA's Process for Determining the Adequacy of Facilities Could Be Improved

    EPA's process for determining the adequacy of facilities for boat sewage
    in proposed no-discharge zones has some limitations. First, the
    information that EPA requires states to provide in their no-discharge zone
    applications supports general but not site-specific estimates of pumpout
    facility needs; additional information needed for more meaningful
    site-specific estimates is optional. Second, EPA generally makes its
    determinations without conducting site visits to the facilities identified
    in the applications. Finally, EPA does not request information on the
    number of boats with portable toilets, which need dump station facilities;
    the agency requests, but does not require, information on the number and
    location of dump station facilities in proposed no-discharge zones.

    EPA Requires States to Provide Information That Supports General Estimates
    of Pumpout Facility Needs

    EPA's regulation implementing the no-discharge zone provisions of the
    Clean Water Act, issued in 1976,9 provides that state applications for
    no-discharge zones must meet the following seven minimum requirements-most
    of which relate to pumpout facilities:

    o a certification that the protection and enhancement of the waters
    described in the application require greater environmental protection than
    the applicable federal standard,

    o a map showing the location of commercial and recreational pumpout
    facilities,

    o a description of the location of the pumpouts,

    o the general schedule of operating hours of the pumpout facilities,

    o the draught requirements on vessels that may be excluded because of
    insufficient water depth adjacent to the facility,10

    o information indicating that treatment of waste from pumpout facilities
    is in conformance with federal law, and

    o information on vessel population and vessel usage of the subject waters.

    In 1994 guidance that augments the regulation, EPA clarified these
    requirements. For example, the guidance specifies that applications must
    state the number and type of pumpout facilities (e.g., stationary or
    mobile). The guidance also indicates that the information to be provided
    on vessel population should reflect the peak occupancy rate-that is, the
    percentage of the population expected to be in use on peak holiday
    weekends. EPA further clarifies that the boat population identified is to
    include boats that are moored in the area as well as transient boats that
    traverse the area. With regard to the treatment of waste from pumpout
    facilities, EPA identifies the treatment options that are acceptable and
    further identifies the two options it prefers.

    With these clarifications, the elements related to pumpout facilities that
    states must include in their applications can provide EPA with information
    sufficient to assess pumpout facility adequacy in broad terms-using a
    general ratio of the number of pumpouts needed for the number of boats in
    the area. For example, the information is generally sufficient for EPA to
    determine whether there is at least one pumpout station for every 300 to
    600 boats in the proposed no-discharge zone-the general criterion that the
    Fish and Wildlife Service provides in its guidance on pumpout adequacy.11
    While EPA does not directly endorse this broad estimate in its regulation
    or its 1994 guidance on no-discharge zones, it does refer states and
    localities to the Fish and Wildlife Service guidance for use as a resource
    in preparing no-discharge zone applications. Further, in our review of 30
    applications for no-discharge zones,12 we found that most of them
    demonstrated ratios that fell within the Fish and Wildlife Service's broad
    general guide of one pumpout facility per 300 to 600 boats.

    Information That Would Support Site-Specific Estimates Is Generally
    Optional

    Although the number of pumpout facilities in a majority of state
    applications fell within the broad guide, the broad guide does not ensure
    that pumpout facilities will be adequate in every case because adequacy
    depends in part on site-specific conditions. As such, the Fish and
    Wildlife Service indicates in its general guidance on pumpout adequacy
    that its broad guide for pumpout adequacy is not a definitive rule, but
    should be modified to reflect varying circumstances for each area.
    Further, the Fish and Wildlife Service provides a formula that may be used
    to develop more site-specific estimates of the number of pumpout
    facilities needed to service vessels in a given area (see fig. 3). One key
    variable included in the formula is the size of boats in the area.
    Generally, the larger the boat, the more likely it is to have a holding
    tank. Because boats with holding tanks use pumpout facilities, the size of
    boats in a proposed no-discharge zone is a pertinent factor in estimating
    pumpout needs.

    Figure 3: Fish and Wildlife Service Formula for Evaluating the Adequacy of
    Pumpout Facilities in an Area

    Note: The formula contained in the Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines
    assumes that 50 percent of boats from 26 to 40 feet and all boats over 40
    feet have holding tanks and need access to pumpout facilities. These
    assumptions are derived from a 1981 EPA assessment of boat size and use of
    marine sanitation devices. Federal officials with whom we spoke were
    unaware of any current national estimates on the number of marine
    sanitation devices. The formula can be adapted to varying estimates
    regarding the number or percent of boats needing pumpout facilities, the
    number of boats that can be serviced per hour, and the number or percent
    of boats at peak occupancy.

    Thus, to the extent that states provide information on the numbers of
    boats in size categories and other information needed for the formula, EPA
    can use, or adapt, the formula to develop a more site-specific estimate of
    pumpout needs. While EPA's 1994 guidance refers to the Fish and Wildlife
    Service's formula as a method to determine adequacy of pumpout facilities
    in no-discharge zones, EPA does not require state no-discharge zone
    applications to include all the information necessary to use the formula.
    Instead, some of the information that may be provided to EPA optionally by
    the state is needed for the formula.

    Specifically, EPA suggests, but does not require, states to submit
    information such as

    o estimates of the number of boats in various size categories that would
    travel in the proposed no-discharge zones,

    o the estimated number or percentage of boats with holding tanks, and

    o the operating capacity, which can be measured as the number of boats
    that can be served by each pumpout facility per hour.

    We note that EPA's guidance states that the additional information that is
    requested, but not required, would enable EPA to make "an informed and
    balanced decision" about the adequacy of the pumpout facilities. Many of
    the state applications we reviewed included some of the optional
    information, but not always in a form that could be used in the Fish and
    Wildlife Service formula.13 For example, some states provided information
    about boat sizes, but categorized the information in ranges that were
    incompatible with the ranges used in the formula. In terms of pumpout
    operating capacity, some states noted the storage capacity of the pumpout
    facility, which is only one factor in determining operating capacity. We
    note that the EPA guidance also provides general estimated values that can
    be used as defaults if site-specific information is not available for some
    of the elements of the formula. However, the use of default values can
    diminish the assurance that the estimate of pumpout facilities needed will
    be adequate for the specific area being evaluated.

    EPA Region I acknowledges the importance of site-specific determinations
    of adequacy of pumpout facilities in guidance it provides to applicants
    for no-discharge zones. That is, while providing a broad general guide on
    adequacy, the guidance also states that there is no set ratio or formula
    to determine the exact number of pumpout facilities necessary to serve a
    given population of boats. Further, the guidance recommends varying
    numbers of pumpout facilities depending on certain site-specific
    circumstances. For example, while the Region I guidance states that a
    ratio of one pumpout facility per 450 boats with holding tanks should be
    sufficient to meet the demand for pumpout services in most areas, it
    recommends a minimum of one pumpout per 300 boats with holding tanks be
    provided in areas where a larger percentage of boats are 25 feet in length
    and over because these boats are more likely to have holding tanks.
    Accordingly, Region I requires applicants to provide the actual or
    estimated number or percentage of boats with holding tanks. Region I
    indicates in its guidance that the estimates of adequacy provided are
    based on their best professional judgment and on the experiences of
    regulatory officials  in other parts of the country where no-discharge
    standards are in effect. Further, the guidance states that the region will
    maintain flexibility on the issue of adequacy, reviewing all applications
    on a case-by-case basis.

    Aside from ensuring that facilities function and exist, it is also
    important to assess factors that are likely to limit boaters' use of and
    access to pumpout stations. Two such factors are fees charged for pumpout
    facility use and whether private facilities restrict the public's access
    to pumpouts. For example, expensive pumpout services raise the concern
    that boaters would illegally discharge sewage into the water instead of
    paying a high pumpout fee. The Clean Vessel Act regulations recognize that
    fees are an important part of pumpout usage and limit the fees charged at
    facilities funded by the grant program generally to $5. EPA, however, has
    not consistently obtained information about fees in evaluating the
    adequacy of pumpout stations. Specifically, EPA's guidance requests but
    does not require the states to provide information on pumpout fees in the
    applications. Several of the no-discharge zone applications that we
    examined either did not identify the fees or included incomplete
    information about the pumpout facility fees. For those no-discharge zones
    that included this information, the fees for pumpout facilities ranged
    from no charge to $25. At the time of the application, six of the nine
    pumpout facilities in one no-discharge zone cost $15 for service, and
    several facilities were free only to marina tenants.

    EPA Generally Does Not Conduct Site Visits to Facilities Identified in
    Applications

    Ensuring the existence and availability of adequate pumpout facilities is
    important because (1) EPA only reviews pumpout adequacy at the time of
    states' applications for no-discharge zones and (2) once EPA has
    determined pumpout adequacy, the states may establish no-discharge zones
    that are essentially permanent designations. Complaints about the lack of
    adequate pumpout facilities even in newly established no-discharge zones
    further underscore the importance of site visits to verify the information
    provided on pumpout stations in the state applications. For example, some
    boaters raised concerns that pumpout facilities malfunction or are
    otherwise unavailable in some no-discharge zones. One boater with whom we
    spoke believes that EPA "rubber stamps" no-discharge zone applications and
    stated that the agency routinely approves applications without confirming
    the availability of pumpout facilities.

    Site visits would provide the most accurate method of verification of the
    pumpout facilities and the related treatment facilities. In addition to
    confirming their existence and location, site visits permit evaluations of
    the condition of the facilities and the boater access to them-factors that
    phone calls to pumpout owners, for example, could not confirm. However,
    according to EPA regional office officials, the agency generally does not
    verify in person either the availability or the accessibility of pumpout
    facilities described in no-discharge zone applications. Specifically, of
    the nine EPA regions that have processed no-discharge zone applications,
    four regions have verified some information about the pumpout facilities
    through site visits. One of these regions has received only one
    application for a no-discharge zone. Of the remaining three regions that
    have conducted site visits, only one region visited a majority of the
    proposed no-discharge zones.14

    An official at a region that has consistently verified the availability of
    pumpout facilities in person explained that the visits help "ground truth"
    the information submitted in no-discharge zone applications. Along these
    lines, the Preliminary Report of the U. S. Commission on Ocean Policy,
    issued for public comment by the nation's governors and other interested
    parties in April 2004, recommends that EPA conduct a thorough assessment,
    including field inspections, to verify the availability and accessibility
    of functioning pumpout facilities in existing no-discharge zones and prior
    to the approval of any new no-discharge zones.

    Some EPA officials who did not verify any or most of the application
    information through site visits attributed this decision to lack of
    authority, inadequate resources, or an EPA presence in the area that
    precluded the need to visit. In terms of authority, however, the EPA
    guidance states that officials may contact owners of pumpout facilities to
    verify information.

    EPA's Determination Process Does Not Consistently Consider the Needs of
    Boaters with On-Board Portable Toilets

    We also found that EPA does not consistently address the adequacy of dump
    stations in its determinations of adequacy of the sewage facilities in
    proposed no-discharge zones. As discussed in the background section, many
    recreational boaters rely on portable toilets and require dump stations to
    dispose of sewage. Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines state that more
    dump stations than pumpout facilities would be desirable in an area that
    has a majority of boats less than 26 feet in length because the smaller
    boats would be more likely to have portable toilets that require dump
    stations. Similar to the formula for estimating the demand for pumpout
    facilities in a given area, the Fish and Wildlife Service provides a
    formula to estimate the demand for dump stations using site-specific
    information. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that 20 percent of
    the boats between 16 and 26 feet in length have portable toilets. Although
    the need for dump stations will vary in the proposed no-discharge zones,
    EPA requests but generally does not require information on the number and
    location of dump station facilities in proposed no-discharge zones.
    Further, EPA does not request information on the number of boats with
    portable toilets that would need dump station, rather than pumpout,
    facilities.

    The Clean Water Act Does Not Address EPA Monitoring of Facilities After
    No-Discharge Zones Are Established, and State Monitoring Is Limited

    The continued adequacy of pumpout facilities in no-discharge zones is
    essential so that boaters can comply with the prohibitions of any sewage
    discharges from boats. Over time, pumpout facilities may become
    inadequate, but we found no EPA and limited state oversight of pumpout
    facilities after no-discharge zones are established. The Clean Water Act
    does not address monitoring or oversight of pumpout facilities in
    established no-discharge zones nor does it define an ongoing role for EPA
    after the establishment of such zones. However, studies by two states of
    the adequacy of pumpout and dump station facilities in long-standing
    no-discharge zones identified problems-including facility shortages-that
    support the need for such oversight. While higher-level oversight is
    minimal, we found that some localities appear to provide effective
    monitoring and oversight.

    Pumpout Needs Are Likely to Change over Time

    Continued adequacy of pumpout facilities is a critical component of an
    effective no-discharge zone because such facilities both allow and
    encourage compliance with the no-discharge prohibitions. Along these
    lines, guidelines issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service on pumpout and
    dump stations encourage the states to conduct periodic surveys to ensure
    an adequate number of both pumpout and dump stations. According to the
    Fish and Wildlife Service guidance, patterns of use identified by such
    surveys will indicate where and if additional pumpout and dump stations
    are needed. Pumpout needs can increase for several reasons. First, some
    pumpout owners may not maintain their pumpout stations in working order or
    may close the facilities. Second, high use of pumpouts and dump stations
    has been related to aggressive management practices, active enforcement in
    no-discharge zones, and good maintenance. That is, as boaters are
    encouraged to use pumpout services and the pumpout facilities become more
    convenient and widespread, demand for such services can increase. The
    operator of a pumpout boat in one no-discharge zone said that he has
    observed that boaters are using larger holding tanks since the town began
    providing pumpout services, moving away from 5-gallon holding tanks to
    20-, 30-, or 50-gallon tanks.

    Third, the capacity of pumpout facilities may not keep pace with increases
    in the boat populations. For example, while Michigan designated all of its
    waterways as a no-discharge zone in 1976, the number of registered boats
    in that state doubled from 535,000 in 1974 to 1 million in 2002-with most
    of the growth occurring after the no-discharge zone was designated. In
    addition, some boating groups believe that initial determinations of
    adequacy of facilities, which are based on a number of assumptions, may
    result in an inaccurate assessment of the need for pumpout services. We
    believe that periodic reevaluations based on actual use and needs would be
    appropriate. Along these lines, in its April 2004 draft report, the U.S.
    Commission on Ocean Policy recommends that EPA conduct a thorough
    assessment, including field inspections, to verify the availability and
    accessibility of functioning pumpout facilities in existing no-discharge
    zones because of inadequate pumpout facilities in some coastal areas.

    After No-Discharge Zones Are Established, Federal and State Monitoring Is
    Limited

    Under the Clean Water Act, once EPA has determined that proposed
    no-discharge zones have adequate pumpout facilities, the areas remain
    state-designated no-discharge zones essentially in perpetuity. We found
    that little or no monitoring of pumpout facilities is done at the federal
    and state levels. First, in part because the act does not address
    monitoring or oversight of the pumpout facilities by EPA after states
    establish no-discharge zones, EPA does not periodically inspect or
    recertify its initial determinations that the facilities are adequate.
    Similarly, the act does not specify any subsequent requirements for the
    states to ensure the continued adequacy of the pumpout facilities. Thus,
    the states each determine how and to what extent they will monitor the
    maintenance and availability of pumpouts in no-discharge zones and
    determine if they will periodically evaluate whether the existing pumpout
    facilities remain sufficient.

    We found that some states have laws that could help ensure that pumpout
    facilities are maintained in working order, if implemented effectively.
    For example, Texas requires that pumpout facilities, wherever they are
    located, be certified annually and that inspections "may be required of
    pumpout facilities prior to certification." To the extent inspections take
    place, this requirement would give the state some assurance that pumpouts
    in no-discharge zones and other areas are being maintained and are
    available to boaters. However, according to an official with the Texas
    Commission on Environmental Quality, currently inspections are not being
    done at the state level because of funding constraints. In addition, we
    found that a 1994 Maryland law requires most marinas to have pumpouts
    available but does not provide for their systematic monitoring. We also
    found that a Michigan law generally requires that all docking facilities
    provide pumpout facilities that are approved by the Department of Health
    and that inland marinas are required to have an operating permit that is
    renewed every 3 years. For the permit renewal, the marina must continue to
    meet the requirements governing marinas, including the provision requiring
    pumpout stations. However, an official in Michigan could not confirm
    whether inspections of pumpouts are occurring as part of this
    recertification process.

    Further, of the 12 states we reviewed, we found that 2-Michigan and
    California-had formally reevaluated the adequacy of pumpouts in
    no-discharge zones. In both cases, they identified a need for more
    facilities. Michigan, which has had a statewide no-discharge zone since
    1976, conducted a comprehensive study in the mid-1990s that identified the
    need for 96 additional pumpout and 169 dump station facilities. Similarly,
    in 2003, a California regional water board conducted a review of the
    pumpout and dump stations in 2 of the state's 12 individual no-discharge
    zones.15 The California regional water board concluded that the pumpout
    and dump stations in the 2 no-discharge zones, which had been established
    in 1976, were not adequate and requested that the state water board
    require additional pumpout and dump stations in these no-discharge zones.
    Further, in one of the no-discharge zones, the water board found that
    three out of the four pumpout stations were inoperable. The water board
    also found a number of problems that could undermine the effectiveness of
    these no-discharge zones including

    o limited or no access to pumpout stations;

    o pumpout hoses lying on the boat slips, which could result in spillage of
    sewage;

    o broken valves, hoses repaired by duct tape, and a lack of required
    meters to determine usage;

    o lack of a current phone number to report an inoperable pumpout;

    o lack of signs on how to operate pumpout stations;

    o lack of signs indicating that the harbor is a no-discharge zone; and

    o lack of maps showing pumpout locations.

    The regional board made recommendations to address these deficiencies to
    the state board and issued a compliance schedule for the actions to be
    taken. In addition, a California official said that the state water board
    is developing a pumpout and dump station monitoring plan for the entire
    state, based on regional pilot projects, that will include standards for
    pumpout and dump station monitoring, operation, and maintenance.

    Localities Sometimes Monitor Facilities

    As noted in the Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines, pumpout monitoring
    is best done by those closest to the area, such as marina personnel. We
    found that effective local monitoring does occur in some of the
    no-discharge zones. Local leadership and support appears to be an
    important factor that can make no-discharge zones successful by ensuring
    that the proper facilities are available when needed. Local leadership can
    be provided by a proactive harbormaster responsible for the facilities or
    a watchdog group in the area. For example, the harbormaster in a long-term
    (1979) no-discharge zone in California-Avalon Bay Harbor-has few problems
    with the operations and maintenance of the pumpout facilities. The
    harbormaster, who has worked in the harbor throughout the life of the
    no-discharge zone, is employed by the city of Avalon, which also pays for
    the operation and maintenance of the pumpouts. The city replaced the
    pumpouts in 1995 using Clean Vessel Act funds, relocating them away from a
    dock that shared a ramp with a ferry and had caused some boat congestion.
    The harbormaster said this change has reduced congestion. The harbor also
    has a pumpout boat funded by the city that can service boats away from the
    dock.

    Another no-discharge zone that appears to be benefiting from local
    monitoring is Key West, Florida. The city of Key West maintains all the
    pumpout facilities in its citywide no-discharge zone, using mooring fees
    to offset costs. A spokesperson for an environmental organization said
    that the city is very proactive in making sure that pumpouts are
    available. For example, they said the city's pumpout boats are very active
    and responsive to requests for pumpouts at all hours. Further, under a
    city ordinance, the

    efforts on preventing discharges from occurring rather than catching
    violators. Along these lines, many officials identified tasks such as
    education and outreach as effective methods to achieve compliance with the
    discharge ban.

    The Coast Guard Does Not Enforce Discharge Prohibitions in Most of the
    No-Discharge Zones

    The Clean Water Act states that the Coast Guard shall enforce the marine
    sanitation device provisions of the act, which include the provisions
    allowing for the establishment of no-discharge zones. In addition, the act
    specifies that the Coast Guard may develop agreements with other federal
    or state agencies to provide enforcement of the marine sanitation device
    provisions. According to Coast Guard officials, although the agency has
    not specifically delegated enforcement authority to enforce no-discharge
    zones to any other entity, various regional agreements are in place that
    delegate law enforcement authority to some state agencies for enforcing
    federal boating standards and associated equipment on recreational and
    uninspected small passenger vessels. Irrespective of any agreements with
    the Coast Guard, the Clean Water Act authorizes states to enforce all of
    the marine sanitation device provisions, including discharge prohibitions
    established under those provisions.

    While the Clean Water Act grants the Coast Guard general authority to
    enforce all no-discharge zones, the Coast Guard's implementing regulations
    only exercise authority to enforce no-discharge zones in those areas where
    EPA has specifically prohibited discharges under its implementing
    regulations. The EPA regulations that the Coast Guard's regulations cite
    prohibit the discharge of treated and untreated sewage into three named,
    federally designated no-discharge zones and into fresh waters which do not
    allow ingress or egress and rivers not capable of navigation by interstate
    vessel traffic. EPA's regulations also allow states to establish
    no-discharge zones but do not identify the state-designated zones that
    have been established. As a result, the Coast Guard enforces the discharge
    prohibitions only in the three federally designated zones, which include
    drinking water intake zones and areas of particular environmental
    importance.16

    EPA and many state officials were not aware of the limitation in
    enforcement authority in the Coast Guard's regulations. EPA headquarters
    and many regional officials with whom we spoke said they believed that the
    Coast Guard had the authority to enforce the discharge ban in both
    state-designated and federally designated no-discharge zones. Further,
    EPA's Web site on vessel sewage discharges states that the Coast Guard and
    the state in which the no-discharge zone has been designated "have
    enforcement authority of the no-discharge zones for vessel sewage." In
    addition, state officials we spoke with believed that the Coast Guard had
    enforcement responsibility for all of the no-discharge zones, whether they
    were state-designated or federally designated.

    Despite the common belief that the Coast Guard has enforcement authority
    in all no-discharge zones under the Clean Water Act, EPA and state
    officials also said that enforcement at the local level can provide the
    most effective enforcement. And we found that, in practice, local
    communities typically serve as the primary enforcement authority in
    no-discharge zones. Further, state officials believe that other priorities
    limit the Coast Guard's ability to enforce the ban against discharges in
    no-discharge zones. Resource constraints have also been cited by the EPA
    as a reason for limited Coast Guard enforcement under the Clean Water Act
    in the past. For example, the no-discharge zone guidance developed by EPA
    Region I in 1991 states that resource constraints have limited the ability
    of the Coast Guard to effectively enforce the marine sanitation standards
    for recreational and small commercial vessels. The guidance notes that to
    compensate for the lack of enforcement, the Coast Guard has entered into
    an agreement with the New England states to share enforcement
    responsibilities for federal boating safety standards and associated
    equipment. The EPA guidance states that although it "does not state so
    explicitly," the Coast Guard's intent under the agreement is that the
    state may also assume responsibility for enforcement of marine sanitation
    device and vessel sewage discharge regulations in this region.

    States Vary in the Manner and Extent to Which They Ensure Compliance

    The extent to which states ensure compliance with the discharge ban in
    no-discharge zones varies in part because states can enforce discharge
    provisions under the Clean Water Act or enact their own no-discharge
    prohibitions. Of the states that we studied, eight states have enacted
    legislation to make the ban against sewage discharges in their
    no-discharge zones effective. Two of the states have not enacted
    legislation but have instead relied on either interagency agreements or
    local ordinances to make the prohibition against sewage discharges
    effective. Officials in the two remaining states identified state laws
    that prohibit the release of any pollutants as the legal basis for
    enforcement of the sewage discharge ban in no-discharge zones.

    There is variety in the extent to which agencies ensure compliance even
    among the states that have enacted no-discharge zone laws. Officials in
    the 12 states we reviewed identified boater education as a tool to
    encourage compliance, but not all of these states may have effective
    mechanisms to penalize violators. For example, the Maryland Department of
    the Environment has primary enforcement responsibility for the state's two
    no-discharge zones but does not patrol waterways to monitor the
    no-discharge zones for violations. According to one of the state's
    no-discharge zone applications, the environmental agency relies primarily
    on violations being reported to it from sources such as the Natural
    Resources Police, local health agencies, marina owners, and boaters.
    Discussing this situation with Maryland officials, including two officers
    with Maryland's Natural Resource Police, we were told that Natural
    Resources Police officers patrol the state waterways and can check for
    improper installation of marine sanitation devices during courtesy boat
    inspections. However, a Natural Resource Police officer said that if an
    officer witnessed a discharge violation, the Natural Resources Police
    would need an authorization from the state Department of the Environment
    to issue any penalties because the state has not established any policies
    or procedures allowing the Natural Resources Police to do so directly.

    Some states are enforcing the no-discharge prohibitions

    Natural resource or law enforcement agencies in several of the states that
    we considered conduct some enforcement of no-discharge zones at the state
    level by inspecting vessel equipment or issuing tickets. For example, the
    Michigan Department of Natural Resources enforces the statewide
    no-discharge zone in part by conducting vessel inspections to ensure that
    marine sanitation systems are sealed shut and thus rendered incapable of
    overboard discharge. Michigan natural resource officers can inspect boats
    under the following circumstances: (1) in response to a complaint that
    discharges occurred or for any other violation of a state law, (2) with
    probable cause, or (3) with permission of the boater. Michigan law
    enforcement officers place stickers with dates on the exterior of vessels
    to indicate that the systems were sealed.

    Some states have used dye tablets as part of inspections to detect leaks
    in the marine sanitation systems on vessels in no-discharge zones.
    Officials place a dye tablet in a boat's toilet and identify any leaks in
    the marine sanitation system by observing whether the dye is released into
    the water.

    Monetary penalties for illegal discharges can potentially range from
    several hundred dollars in some states to several thousand dollars in
    others.17 State law enforcement officials pointed out the challenge of
    issuing tickets for illegal discharges because of the difficulties in
    detecting violations. We found that at least one state has issued tickets
    with monetary penalties to boaters for violating the sewage discharge ban
    in a no-discharge zone.18 However, reliable data that would indicate the
    frequency of tickets issued for illegal sewage discharges in no-discharge
    zones were not available in many of the states that we considered.
    Further, one state official explained that such data might not identify
    all sewage discharge citations because in some cases local authorities can
    also issue tickets.

    Other states emphasize education over enforcement

    We found that many states have encouraged compliance by educating boaters
    about the ban on sewage discharges rather than penalizing violators. For
    example, one official at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
    periodically visits marinas and explains the sewage discharge ban to
    boaters. This official has not issued tickets, but relies on these
    interactions to encourage compliance with the discharge ban in
    no-discharge zones. Also, Maryland has sought to encourage compliance with
    the discharge ban in no-discharge zones by educating boaters about the ban
    on discharges, proper installation of marine sanitation equipment, and the
    location and operation of pumpout facilities. State officials believe that
    these outreach efforts influence boater attitudes and enhance compliance
    with the discharge restrictions.

    Enforcement may occur at the local level

    Irrespective of state enforcement efforts, enforcement may occur at the
    local level. For example, we found that marina owners and town
    harbormasters may rely on vessel equipment inspections, water patrols,
    tickets, or dye tablet programs to help enforce the ban against discharges
    in no-discharge zones.19 Further, some localities have enacted ordinances
    to authorize local enforcement of the discharge prohibitions.

    Local law enforcement officers have inspected recreational vessels to
    ensure that equipment is securely closed to prevent sewage discharges into
    the water. Inspections are typically voluntary. Some localities direct
    officers to patrol harbor areas in vessels and observe boating activity.
    In one of those localities, the patrol officers do not screen the area for
    illegal discharges but rather monitor compliance with all boating laws.
    Local law enforcement officials acknowledge that such surveillance is
    unlikely to catch all illegal discharges.

    Dye tablets have helped officials detect illegal discharges and prosecute
    violators in some areas. For example, Avalon Harbor, a no-discharge zone
    off Catalina Island, California, uses a dye tablet program to enforce the
    ban against vessel sewage discharges. Avalon harbormaster officials place
    a dye tablet in each toilet of every boat that enters the harbor. The
    tablet dyes the waste in the holding tank, producing a lime green color.
    If a boater discharges the tank contents into the water, the bright green
    dye appears in the water and clearly marks the identity and location of
    the illegal discharge. The dye plume remains visible in the water for
    approximately 15 to 20 minutes. According to an Avalon Harbor official,
    they have identified about 450 violators since the program's inception in
    1988. He said that the city of Avalon has authority to assess monetary
    penalties of up to $500 for sewage discharges but typically assesses
    penalties of less than $300. He said they have also prohibited violators
    from using the harbor for one year, noting that the possibility of being
    barred from the harbor is actually a greater deterrent than fines. The
    photograph in figure 4  shows in the lower left corner a dye plume, which
    was released by a dye tablet in Avalon Harbor, California.

    Figure 4: Dye Tablet Used in Avalon Harbor, California

    While dye tablets can help officials link violators to illegal discharges,
    they are a resource-intensive method. The dye tablets themselves are
    inexpensive, but the locality must have officers to distribute them and
    then monitor the waters for dye releases. Furthermore, other localities
    point out that dye tablets would not be effective in all waterways because
    in some areas the dye would not show up well or would dissipate too
    quickly to be effective.

    The city of Key West, Florida, provides an example of how municipalities
    can use ordinances to help enforce the ban on sewage discharges.
    Specifically, the city has enacted an ordinance to recognize the discharge
    ban and implement compliance requirements. The ordinance requires all
    marinas with pumpout facilities and each vessel to maintain logs that
    track sewage pumpout activities. These records allow the city to monitor
    pumpout activity. The city also has a dedicated marine unit that actively
    enforces the discharge ban in the no-discharge zone, in conjunction with
    the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

    Representatives of local entities also have cited other informal or
    indirect methods that promote compliance with the discharge prohibitions,
    such as peer pressure and marina lease agreements. For example, one local
    representative said that boaters often encourage each other to refrain
    from discharging. Other representatives of local entities stated that
    boaters report suspected violators to harbor officials. In addition, some
    noted that marinas also often include discharge bans in lease agreements
    as conditions for slip rentals.

    Finally, we note that a lack of effective coordination among authorized
    enforcement agencies can impede compliance efforts. For example, a Texas
    marine protection official explained that multiple entities-including
    municipalities, a county sheriff's department, a state natural resources
    agency, health districts, and the Coast Guard-have authority to enforce
    the discharge ban, yet none of the entities have actively done so. This
    official reported that enforcement did not occur for the following
    reasons: (1) the agencies did not know how to screen for violations, (2) a
    desire to avoid jurisdiction conflicts, (3) concerns that fining boaters
    would be perceived as an attempt to obtain extra funds, and (4) the belief
    of each agency that another agency was enforcing the discharge ban.

    Although Few Data Are Available, EPA, State, and Local Officials Report
    Benefits After Designation of No-Discharge Zones

    A number of EPA, state, and local officials believe that water quality and
    environmental stewardship have increased following designation of
    no-discharge zones. While it is difficult to measure the specific effect
    of no-discharge zones on overall water quality, officials cite various
    reasons for believing that the zones help protect water quality, and
    states and localities often include no-discharge zones in comprehensive
    water quality improvement plans. Further, state and local officials told
    us that no-discharge zones result in a sense of increased environmental
    stewardship among boaters and marina owners. In 2003 EPA hired a
    contractor to conduct a series of surveys to assess various no-discharge
    zone issues. As of April 15, 2004, EPA had not received the contractor's
    report. This information may offer additional perspectives on the effects
    of no-discharge zones.

    Water Quality Improvements Reported

    Because it is difficult to distinguish boat discharges from other sources
    of water pollution or to link water quality improvements to specific
    programs, measuring the specific effect of no-discharge zones as opposed
    to other pollution programs on overall water quality is problematic, and
    few data are available on the effect of no-discharge zones. However, some
    officials report that water quality has improved following the
    establishment of no-discharge zones. For example, 3 years after Great Salt
    Pond in Rhode Island was designated a no-discharge zone in 1993, shellfish
    beds were reopened for harvesting. The shellfish beds had been closed
    since 1983 because of increases in fecal coliform bacteria concentrations
    during increased boating activity in the summer. According to a state
    official, a decrease in nutrients from sewage discharges has also resulted
    in fewer algae blooms. EPA and Rhode Island officials attribute these
    changes to the designation of Great Salt Pond as a no-discharge zone,
    along with an increase in the number of pumpout facilities and better
    boater education.

    Officials also cite good water testing results as at least partially
    attributable to no-discharge zones. For example, California law requires
    water quality testing for waters adjacent to public beaches for
    microbiological contaminations, including total coliform, fecal coliform,
    and enterococci bacteria, to monitor potential human health risks. The
    harbormaster in Channel Islands Harbor, a no-discharge zone in California,
    said that quarterly water quality testing results there consistently show
    good water quality, even though the harbor is large, with more than 2,600
    slips, and about 5,000 visiting boats per year, plus 100 permanent and 40
    to 50 transient commercial fishing boats. Another official also said a
    measure of the success of the no-discharge zone in his area is that while
    the boating population has increased greatly, the level of water quality,
    while it has not improved, has not declined.

    Some no-discharge zone officials also measure improvements to waters in
    no-discharge zones using proxy measures such as the quantity of sewage
    that was prevented from polluting the water because it was pumped out of
    boats by pumpout facilities. For example, according to the Nantucket
    harbormaster, 110,000 to 120,000 gallons of sewage are pumped annually
    from boats in the Nantucket Harbor no-discharge zone in Massachusetts.
    Rhode Island, which has a statewide no-discharge zone, tracks data on the
    number of gallons of sewage pumped for marinas throughout the state.
    According to a state official, gallons pumped from boats statewide grew
    from 254,500 in 2000 to 371,000 in 2002, an increase of 46 percent.

    By a similar gauge of damage averted, EPA, state and local officials also
    told us that the ban against treated sewage is a valuable pollution
    prevention measure in some areas because marine sanitation devices do not
    fully eliminate pathogens-of particular importance in human bathing and
    shellfish bed areas-nor do they remove nutrients from the discharge.
    Excessive nutrients can be a problem because they encourage the thick
    growth of aquatic plants that contribute to an unhealthy environment,
    including low dissolved oxygen levels, which harm aquatic life, such as
    fish and coral reefs. For example, the Chesapeake Bay has been listed as
    an impaired water body under the Clean Water Act due to low dissolved
    oxygen related to excess nutrients, which has killed fish and other
    organisms. In addition, new coral growth that has been found off Key West
    may be resulting, in part, from the Key West no-discharge zone that
    disallows the release of treated sewage. Although it is difficult to
    attribute water quality and other improvements directly to any one
    pollution prevention program, an environmental organization has related
    the no-discharge zone and the advanced wastewater treatment system to the
    new coral growth that it states has not been found elsewhere in the
    Florida Keys.

    In addition, states and localities often cite the no-discharge zone
    designation as an important element of comprehensive plans to improve
    water quality for large water areas, including bay and estuary management
    plans.

    o Most of the New England coast is under EPA's National Estuary Program,
    which was authorized by the Congress to improve the quality of estuaries
    of national importance. No-discharge zones are included in these
    Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans. Similarly, the plan for
    Barnegat Bay, New Jersey, also included a no-discharge zone in order to
    improve water quality. In 2003, after EPA made a determination that the
    pumpout facilities were adequate, the Barnegat Bay no-discharge zone was
    established.

    o Maryland's no-discharge zones are part of comprehensive plans to improve
    the water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and in Maryland's coastal bays.
    The Chesapeake Bay Agreement-signed by EPA, the Chesapeake Bay Commission,
    and the states of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and the District of
    Columbia-identified no-discharge zones as a tool for improving water
    quality in the bay. Similarly, the Maryland Coastal Bays Conservation and
    Management Plan, developed in 1995 under the National Estuary Program,
    included an action item for no-discharge zone designation. In 2002, EPA
    determined that Herring Bay in the Chesapeake Bay and Northern Coastal
    Bays had adequate pumpout facilities and these became no-discharge zones.

    o In New York State, proposed no-discharge zones have been included as
    components of a federally approved Coastal Zone Management Program to
    advance coastal policies related to the protection of sensitive areas. To
    identify sensitive areas for possible designation as no-discharge zones,
    New York did a comprehensive assessment of the state's coastal areas,
    including those affected by the introduction of nitrogen or chemicals from
    marine sanitation devices, such as shellfish beds. New York determined
    that part of the Hudson River should be designated a no-discharge zone,
    but the area had an inadequate number of pumpout facilities. Using Clean
    Vessel Act funding, pumpout facilities were added and this area was
    established as a no-discharge zone in 2003.

    o An advisory committee recommended no-discharge zone designation as one
    of a number of tools to minimize sewage being discharged into Lake Powell,
    located in Utah and Arizona. The advisory committee included
    representatives from state government, the National Park Service, two
    universities, and the Navajo Nation and was formed to study ways to
    address beach closures resulting from fecal contamination. In 2000, EPA
    determined that Lake Powell had adequate facilities to establish a
    no-discharge zone.

    Finally, some officials also cited economic benefits related to
    no-discharge zones. For example, a Rhode Island official said that boat
    sewage is incompatible with shellfish health, and thus the statewide
    no-discharge zone benefited the offshore clamming industry. A marina owner
    in the no-discharge zone in Maryland's Chesapeake Bay said that the
    cleaner water resulting from the no-discharge zone is beneficial to the
    marina business. Officials in Newport Bay, a California no-discharge zone,
    said there was a "huge" economic value in having clean water in the bay.
    They said that increases in boat discharges would result in property
    values decreasing and a drop in tourism and in sport and commercial
    fishing because the visitors would go elsewhere if the water were dirty.

    Increases in Environmental Stewardship Reported

    Along with the water quality benefits, a number of EPA, state, and local
    officials told us that no-discharge zones have fostered a sense of
    environmental stewardship or responsibility among boaters and marina
    owners and have encouraged them to take concrete steps to protect
    sensitive waters. One marina owner said that the presence of a
    no-discharge zone "drives new environmental programs." Another
    often-mentioned feature of environmental stewardship that is cited is the
    phenomenon of peer pressure, or boaters monitoring other boaters to
    prevent them from discharging.

    Recent EPA Surveys May Provide Additional Perspectives

    A national assessment of no-discharge zones was conducted by a contractor
    for EPA in the fall of 2003 in the form of surveys of groups that are
    relevant to no-discharge zones, such as boaters and marina owners. One of
    EPA's goals was to use the survey data to evaluate the effectiveness of
    no-discharge zones and of marine sanitation devices. EPA officials said
    the marine sanitation device standards have been in place for a long time
    and do not incorporate current limits for water pollution, such as for
    nutrients and enterococcus. EPA is also concerned about how well marine
    sanitation devices perform over time because there are no requirements to
    determine whether these devices continue to function after initial
    certification.20

    The set of surveys was tailored to obtain information from specific groups
    involved with no-discharge zones, as follows:

    o to survey boat owners and operators about boating activity, pumpout
    station usage, reasons for using or declining to use pumpout stations,
    volume of boat waste generated, and effectiveness of no-discharge zones;

    o to obtain information from states about enforcement and water quality
    for specific no-discharge zones, such as changes in the frequency of beach
    closures and changes in shellfish bed contamination after no-discharge
    zone designation; and

    o to assess marina owners' and operators' knowledge of no-discharge zones
    and pumpout stations.

    EPA also surveyed marine sanitation device manufacturers and laboratories
    that certify marine sanitation devices on how these devices treat bacteria
    and pathogens. EPA estimates that there are about 30 to 40 marine
    sanitation device manufacturers in the U.S. and approximately 60
    worldwide. As of April 15, 2004, EPA had not yet received the draft report
    on the surveys' results from the contractor. However, an EPA official said
    that information provided by the contractor to date was consistent with
    the issues we have identified.

    Conclusions

    The success of no-discharge zones in improving water quality depends in
    large measure on the ongoing availability of accessible and affordable
    pumpout and dump station facilities that encourage and allow all boaters
    to comply with the discharge restrictions. EPA has developed a workable
    framework for determining the initial adequacy of pumpout facilities in
    proposed no-discharge zones, although this determination process could be
    enhanced and better supported. Some of the key information needed to
    develop site-specific estimates of pumpout facility needs is optional, and
    EPA would be better able to make informed, balanced determinations if it
    consistently received this information. Also, EPA's determinations of
    adequacy would be better supported if the agency conducted site
    inspections of the facilities identified in the applications, as
    recommended in the April 2004 Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on
    Ocean Policy. In addition, we believe that EPA's determination process
    would be more comprehensive if it also covered the adequacy of dump
    stations, which it does not currently address.

    Given that no-discharge zones are established in perpetuity, some
    monitoring is warranted to ensure the ongoing adequacy of pumpout and dump
    station facilities in these zones. For no-discharge zones to be effective,
    pumpout facilities need to be adequate not only when the no-discharge
    zones are designated but also over time. Pumpout facilities may not remain
    available for various reasons, including inadequate maintenance; and
    increases in the use of pumpout facilities and the number of boats in
    no-discharge zones may require additional facilities in order to help
    boaters comply with the discharge prohibitions. While the Clean Water Act
    does not specify a continuing EPA role, we believe that EPA needs to
    develop a mechanism to address the continued adequacy of the pumpout and
    dump station facilities over time, such as requiring periodic
    recertifications. Such a mechanism would be consistent with the
    recommendation contained in the April 2004 Preliminary Report of the U.S.
    Commission on Ocean Policy that EPA reevaluate the adequacy of facilities
    in existing no-discharge zones.

    We recognize that enforcing discharge prohibitions is inherently difficult
    and requires resources that may also be needed for other activities such
    as, in the case of the Coast Guard, rescue operations and homeland
    security. In our view, states and localities may reasonably be expected to
    provide the primary enforcement of the discharge prohibitions in their
    no-discharge zones. However, the Coast Guard could enhance compliance with
    the discharge bans by providing some level of enforcement in
    state-designated no-discharge zones. While the states should not look to
    the Coast Guard to take the lead in such enforcement, it is not clear why
    the Coast Guard does not exercise its statutory authority to enforce the
    restrictions in no-discharge zones in which the Coast Guard operates, such
    as in coastal areas. In any event, the Coast Guard and EPA should work
    with the relevant states to ensure that all parties understand and agree
    on their respective enforcement roles. Clarity is needed so that EPA and
    the states can ensure that appropriate enforcement efforts are made in
    no-discharge zones.

    Recommendations for Executive Action

    To enable EPA regions to consistently develop site-specific estimates of
    the need for pumpout facilities and thereby better assess the adequacy of
    the pumpout services in reviewing applications for no-discharge zones, we
    recommend that the Administrator of EPA

    o require EPA regions to obtain and consider all information needed to
    develop site-specific estimates of pumpout facilities to adequately
    support proposed no-discharge zones, such as information on pumpout fees
    and estimates of the number of boats in various size categories and/or
    those with holding tanks; and

    o require EPA regions to conduct site inspections to verify that the
    pumpout facilities identified in proposed no-discharge zone applications
    are available, in good working order, and accessible to boaters.

    To better ensure that the boaters using on-board portable toilets in
    no-discharge zones have adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary
    removal and treatment of sewage from their boats, we recommend that the
    Administrator of EPA require EPA's regions to also evaluate the adequacy
    of dump station facilities when determining whether adequate facilities
    for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all boats
    are reasonably available.

    To ensure that pumpout and dump station facilities remain available in
    existing no-discharge zones, we recommend that the Administrator of EPA
    develop a mechanism or mechanisms to help ensure that facilities in
    established no-discharge zones remain adequate and available over time,
    seeking additional authority, if needed, to require periodic
    recertifications in which the adequacy and availability of facilities
    would be reevaluated by EPA or by reviewing periodic state assessments of
    the adequacy and availability of facilities in existing no-discharge
    zones.

    Because of the current confusion about the Coast Guard's enforcement role
    for no-discharge zones, we recommend that the Coast Guard and EPA (1) meet
    with the relevant states to review the enforcement roles in the
    state-designated no-discharge zones, (2) determine whether current
    enforcement is adequate, and (3) clarify the respective enforcement roles
    in EPA and Coast Guard guidance and, if appropriate, revise federal
    regulations.

    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

    We provided copies of a draft of this report to EPA and the Coast Guard.
    The chief of EPA's Marine Pollution Control Branch said that the agency
    generally agreed with the findings and recommendations in the draft
    report. In addition, both EPA and the Coast Guard provided some technical
    suggestions that we incorporated into the final report. EPA and the Coast
    Guard also met to discuss the enforcement recommendation in the draft
    report that called for EPA and the Coast Guard to review the interplay
    between their respective regulations implementing the no-discharge zone
    provisions of the Clean Water Act and determine and clarify the Coast
    Guard's role in enforcing the restrictions in state-designated
    no-discharge zones. At the meeting, EPA and the Coast Guard agreed that
    the Clean Water Act provides the Coast Guard with authority to enforce
    discharges in no-discharge zones and that the Coast Guard had limited this
    authority in its implementing regulations. Because the confusion over the
    Coast Guard's role extended beyond EPA to the states and localities that
    were also not aware of the limited enforcement authority by the Coast
    Guard in the majority of the no-discharge zones (the 56 state-designated
    zones), we revised the recommendation in the report to ensure that EPA,
    the Coast Guard, and relevant states review enforcement roles, determine
    the adequacy of enforcement, and for EPA and the Coast Guard to revise
    their guidance to clarify the respective enforcement roles of the states
    and the Coast Guard in all no-discharge zones.

    As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of
    this report earlier, we will plan no further distribution until 30 days
    after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to
    other interested congressional committees, the Administrator of the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency, and the Secretary of Homeland Security.
    We will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the
    report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at
    http://www.gao.gov.

    If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-3841.
    Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

    Sincerely yours,

    John B. Stephenson, Director Natural Resources and Environment

    EPA- and State-Designated No-Discharge ZonesAppendix I

    A total of 59 no-discharge zones have been designated by either the EPA or
    states in 23 states since 1975. The following table provides information
    on no-discharge zones that have been designated as of March 31, 2004, and
    includes the type of designation; the state or states where the
    no-discharge zone is located; the name of the body of water designated;
    and the year that EPA's rule establishing an EPA-designated no-discharge
    zone was published in the Federal Register or that EPA made a
    determination that adequate pumpout facilities were available in a
    proposed no-discharge zone.

    Table 1:

    Type of designation         State                  Waterbody          Year
                           California             Mission Bay                1976
                           California             Oceanside Harbor           1976
                           California             Dana Point Harbor          1976
    State: Particular                          San Diego Bay (30 ft.
    Environmental       California             deep at Mean Lower Low     1976
    Importance When                            Watera
    Adequate Pumpout    California             Newport Bays               1976
    Facilities Are      California             Sunset Bay                 1976
    Available           California             Pacific Coast Highway      1976
                                                  Bridge
                           California             Huntington Harbor          1976
                           California             Channel Islands Harbor     1979
                           California             Avalon Bay Harbor          1979
                           California             Richardson Bay             1987
                           California/Nevada      Lake Tahoe                 1977
                                                  Pawcatuck River, Little
                                                  Narragansett Bay,
                           Connecticut            portions of Fishers        2003
                                                  Island Sound and
                                                  Stonington Harbor
                           Florida                Destin Harbor              1988
                           Florida                City of Key West waters    1999
                           Maryland               Herring Bay                2002
                           Maryland               Northern Coastal Bays      2002
                           Massachusetts          Nantucket Harbor           1992
                           Massachusetts          Wareham Harbor             1992
                           Massachusetts          Westport Harbor            1994
                           Massachusetts          Waquoit Bay                1994
                           Massachusetts          Wellfleet                  1995
                           Massachusetts          Stage Harbor Complex       1997
                           Massachusetts          Harwich                    1998
                           Massachusetts          Buzzards Bay               2000
                           Massachusetts          Three Bay/Centerville      2001
                                                  Harbor
                           Michigan               All                        1976
                           Minnesota              St. Croix River            1996
                           Minnesota              Mississippi River (part)   1977
                           Minnesota              Minnesota River (part)     1977
                                                  All (except Mississippi
                           Missouri               River, Missouri River,     1975
                                                  part of Bull Shoals Lake)
                           New Hampshire          All (except coastal        1975
                                                  waters)
                           New Jersey             Barnegat Bay               2003
                           New Jersey             Shark River                1998
                           New Jersey             Manasquan River            1998
                           New Jersey             Navesink River             1999
                           New Jersy              Shrewsbury River           2000
                           New Mexico             All                        1976
                           New York               Hudson River (Manhattan    2003
                                                  to Troy, 153 miles)
                           New York               Lake Champlain             1976
                           New York               Lake George                1976
                           New York               Mamaroneck Harbor          1997
                           New York               East Hampton (7 water      1999
                                                  bodies)
                           New York               Greater Huntington-North   2000
                                                  Port
                           New York               Port Jefferson Harbor      2001
                                                  Complex
                           New York               Peconic Estuary            2002
                           Rhode Island           Great Salt Pond, Block     1993
                                                  Island
                           Rhode Island           All                        1998
                           South Carolina/Georgia Hartwell Lake              1995
                           South Carolina/North   Broad Creek, Lake Keowee,
                           Carolina/Georgia       Lake Murray, Lake          1999
                                                  Thurmond, and Lake Wylie
                           Texas                  24 freshwater bodies       1999
                           Texas                  Clear Lake                1996b
                           Utah and Arizona       Lake Powell                2000
                                                  All (including parts of
                           Vermont                Lake Champlain and Lake    1975
                                                  Memphremagog)
                           Virginia               Smith Mountain Lake        2000
                                                  All (except Lake
                           Wisconsin              Superior, Mississippi      1976
                                                  River, part of St. Croix
                                                  River)
    EPA: Particular                            State waters within the
    Environmental       Florida                Florida Keys National      2002
    Importance                                 Marine Sanctuary
                           Minnesota              Boundary Waters Canoe      1977
                                                  Area
    EPA: Drinking water New York               Hudson River (part)        1995
    intake zone

    No-Discharge Zones

    Source: U.S. EPA and GAO.

    aMeans Lower Low Water is the average height of the lower of the two low
    waters of any tidal day over a 19-year period.

    bThis date is approximate. EPA did not announce the determination of
    adequate pumpout facilities for Clear Lake in the Federal Register, but
    the applicant estimated that Clear Lake was designated as a no-discharge
    zone in spring 1996. The application was submitted to EPA Region 6 on
    April 21, 1994.

    Objectives, Scope, and MethodologyAppendix II

    Our objectives were to (1) evaluate EPA's process for determining whether
    states have adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and
    treatment of sewage from boats in proposed no-discharge zones, (2) assess
    the extent to which EPA and the states ensure that adequate pumpout
    facilities are available after a no-discharge zone is designated, (3)
    evaluate the extent to which the Coast Guard and the states enforce
    compliance with the prohibition against vessel sewage discharges in
    no-discharge zones, and (4) identify the effects of no-discharge zones
    that EPA, states, and localities have reported.

    To achieve our first objective, we reviewed the requirements for
    designation of no-discharge zones in statutes, regulations, and federal
    guidance, as well as additional formal and informal criteria that have
    been developed by EPA regions. We interviewed and obtained documents from
    officials in EPA's regional offices and state environmental and/or natural
    resource agencies, as appropriate, to assess the basis of no-discharge
    zone approvals for 12 of the 23 states that have received no-discharge
    zone designations: California, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
    Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Texas, and Utah.
    State selection factors included: geographic dispersion; coastal,
    noncoastal, and Great Lakes locations; a range of no-discharge zone
    designation dates; both partial and total inclusion of state surface
    waters in no-discharge zones; no-discharge zones that include both
    recreational and commercial vessel traffic; and at least one no-discharge
    zone petition for designation that was denied. Also, we evaluated at least
    one state in each of the nine EPA Regions that have no-discharge zones.
    EPA was unable to provide copies of the applications for no-discharge zone
    determinations made prior to 1984. For established no-discharge zones, we
    were able to obtain copies of 30 of the 48 no-discharge zone applications
    for the 12 states we reviewed. We were not able to obtain every
    application submitted by 10 of the states nor any applications from 2
    states; these applications were considered in the 1970s. We also reviewed
    the Pumpout Station and Dump Station Technical Guidelines developed by the
    Fish and Wildlife Service under the Clean Vessel Act.

    To assess the extent to which EPA and the states ensure that adequate
    pumpout facilities are available after a no-discharge zone is designated,
    we reviewed statutes and regulations, analyzed federal guidance, and
    interviewed federal and state officials in the nine regions with
    no-discharge zones. We requested and collected available state data on
    monitoring for the 12 states in our review, and we interviewed
    representatives of local entities in 14 of the 48 no discharge zones in
    the 12 states.

    To assess the extent to which the Coast Guard and the states enforce
    compliance with the prohibition against vessel sewage discharges in
    no-discharge zones, we analyzed the requirements for enforcement that are
    contained in statutes and regulations and also analyzed federal guidance.
    We interviewed officials at Coast Guard and state and local law
    enforcement agencies to determine the extent of enforcement activities for
    the 12 states we reviewed. We collected and analyzed the available data on
    the enforcement actions in these 12 states.

    To achieve the final objective, we interviewed federal and state officials
    and representatives of local entities to obtain their views and available
    information on the effects of the no-discharge zones in the 12 states we
    reviewed. We reviewed the surveys that EPA was using for its 2003 review
    of no-discharge zones, but the findings were not available as of May 15,
    2004.

    Overview of Marine Sanitation DevicesAppendix III

    A  marine sanitation device includes any equipment for installation on
    board a vessel, which is designed to receive, retain, treat, or discharge
    sewage, and any process to treat such sewage.1 The following table
    presents information for each type of marine sanitation device, including
    the function, the use and applicability, and effluent limits.

    Table 2:

    Type of       Function         Use and             Effluent limits
    marine device                  applicability
                     Physical and     Type I marine
                     chemical         sanitation devices
                     treatment of     are acceptable on   Device must be
                     sewage prior to  vessels that are 65 certified to treat
                     discharge.       feet in length and  waste to a fecal
    Type I                         under.a             coliform bacteria count
                     Type I devices                       no greater than
                     generally        Coast Guard reports 1000/100 milliliters
                     macerate and     that most Type I    and with no visible
                     chlorinate the   devices are found   floating solids.
                     waste.           on vessels built
                                      before 1980.
                                      Type II marine
                                      sanitation devices
                                      are permitted on
                     Biological or    all vessels. Type
                     physical and     II devices are
                     chemical         generally installed
                     treatment of     on vessels that are
                     sewage prior to  over 65 feet in     Device must be
                     discharge.       length.b            certified to treat
                                                          waste to produce
                     Includes         Commonly used on    effluent having a fecal
    Type II       biological       commercial vessels  coliform bacteria count
                     (aerobic         and can treat       no greater than 200/100
                     digestion)       several hundred to  milliliters and
                     treatment        many thousand       suspended solids no
                     devices and      gallons of sewage   greater than 150
                     devices that     per day.            milligrams/liter.
                     macerate and
                     chlorinate       Type II devices are
                     waste.           larger than Type I
                                      devices and
                                      generally require
                                      more power to
                                      operate.
                                      Used on vessels of
                                      any size.

                                      Commonly include
                                      holding tanks, but
                                      other devices that
                                      qualify as Type III
                                      are:

                     Sewage storage   vacuum collection   There is no waste
    Type III      prior to pumpout systems,            effluent standard
                     at a pumpout     incineration        because the device does
                     facility.        systems,            not treat waste.
                                      recirculation
                                      systems, and a
                                      composting system.

                                      Most recreational
                                      boats built since
                                      the late 1970s have
                                      included holding
                                      tanks.

    Marine Sanitation Devices

    Source: U.S. EPA and U.S. Coast Guard (data); GAO (analysis).

    aVessels 65 feet in length and under with an installed toilet must be
    equipped with a marine sanitation device.

    bVessels over 65 feet in length with an installed toilet must be equipped
    with either a Type II or Type III marine sanitation device.

    Boaters may retrofit, or make modifications to, marine sanitation devices,
    as shown in table 3.

    Table 3: Retrofitted Marine Sanitation Devices

    Components                Function                Relevant Standards
    Boaters modify (1) Type I
    or II marine sanitation
    devices so they can store                         The retrofitted marine
    waste to be pumped out of                         sanitation device is not
    a holding tank. For                               a separate category
    example, a boater may     Allows boats to comply  recognized by EPA or
    incorporate a holding     with varying discharge  Coast Guard regulations.
    tank into the plumbing    restrictions when       The applicable standards
    system that connects to a traveling in and out of will depend on whether
    Type I device, or (2)     no-discharge zones.     the boater wants to
    Type III marine                                   treat and discharge or
    sanitation devices so                             store and receive a
    that they can treat waste                         pumpout.
    with a Type I or II
    device.

    Source: U.S. EPA and U.S. Coast Guard (data); GAO (analysis).

    GAO Contacts and Staff AcknowledgmentsAppendix IV

    GAO Contacts

    John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841 Christine Fishkin, (202) 512-6895

    Staff Acknowledgments

    In addition to those individuals named above, Kate Cardamone, Karen
    Keegan, Cynthia Norris, Ilga Semeiks, and Amy Webbink made key
    contributions to this report.

    (360373)
    *** End of document. ***