Under the federal regulations of 33CFR Subchapter O, if a vessel equipped with a Type II Marine Sanitation Device enters a body of water where the discharge of treated or untreated sewage is prohibited, which of the following methods of securing the device to prevent the discharge of sewage is ACCEPTABLE if it is impractical to close the seacock and prevent its opening?
ā¢ 33 CFR Part 159 ā Marine Sanitation Devices in waters where discharge is prohibited ā¢ Difference between a physical/positive means of securing versus a warning or advisory only ā¢ Purpose of a no-discharge zone: to ensure no possibility of sewage discharge, even accidentally
ā¢ Which option actually makes it physically impossible or very difficult for someone to cause a sewage discharge, rather than just telling them not to? ā¢ Look for the choice that most closely matches the idea of a locked or disabled system in 33 CFR, not just a notice or reminder. ā¢ Ask yourself: if a new crew member ignored all signs and announcements, which method would still prevent sewage from being discharged?
ā¢ Verify in 33 CFR Part 159 that acceptable methods involve a secure/locked or disabled arrangement, not just warnings. ā¢ Check which option would satisfy an inspector asking, "Show me how this MSD is secured so it cannot be used right now." ā¢ Eliminate any answers that rely only on people paying attention instead of a physical barrier or lock.
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts!