Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 10-16-2016, 05:12 PM   #21
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 12,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by foggysail View Post
If the cost was only $100 there remains no justifiable reason to install such a system other than to think you are saving the environment. Here in Massachusetts there are only two legal ways to rid waste. First is to go beyond the three mile limit......that means 3 miles south of Matha's Vineyard, about 18 miles from slip and another 18 miles to return to slip OR call the pump out boat.

So your approach to prevent damage to neighbors is to subject yourself risking receiving an environmental citation from one of our many gun carrying environmental police operating in $250K+ taxpayer paid boats.
Classic TF....

What works for me and is worth it may not be to you....

All I did was blow giant holes I your statements about cost and some justification.

But I agree that in YOUR case and some others, they might be a waste of money...in fact I agonized over it too till I saw the benifits for me.

Not all things o TF are absolute...no matter how some try to make them...

And poking fun at some of the folks that may risk their lives dealing with a problem you might have is in bad taste...but you do have that right.
__________________
Advertisement

psneeld is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2016, 05:31 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
City: Ashland
Country: United States
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
Classic TF....

What works for me and is worth it may not be to you....

All I did was blow giant holes I your statements about cost and some justification.

But I agree that in YOUR case and some others, they might be a waste of money...in fact I agonized over it too till I saw the benifits for me.

Not all things o TF are absolute...no matter how some try to make them...

And poking fun at some of the folks that may risk their lives dealing with a problem you might have is in bad taste...but you do have that right.

Maybe if you read one of my earlier posts on this topic you will read that if such systems were approved in lieu of a pump out, I would go forward with a purchase and installation. And just what do you mean with "TF???"

And cry on my shoulder.....environmental police risking their lives??? REally??? Coast Guard for sure along with very much needed law enforcement officers patrolling crime ridden cities. Enough! Enjoy your needless poop system
__________________

foggysail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2016, 05:57 PM   #23
Guru
 
78puget-trawler's Avatar
 
City: LaConner
Country: USA
Vessel Model: 34' CHB
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 584
Hi Peggy, this is timely for me. Living in the Puget Sound area which you may know is being considered by the EPA to become a NDZ, I will be looking at some repairs in my CHB. I currently have a holding tank that needs to be replaced, a macerator that works I guess, it makes noise when I flip the switch, and as you may recall, 2 new toilets. Both toilets have Y valves and are plumbed to the tank. With the EPA decision pending and could take months, beyond replacing my bad HT is there anything else I can do or should do to be more compliant or just be sure to pump into the HT and then a pump out station? I take it the macerator only chews up what's in the HT, is that right, then over board? I am sure others here in the PS area are wondering too. Thanks!!!
78puget-trawler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2016, 06:22 PM   #24
Guru
 
HeadMistress's Avatar


 
City: AR
Country: USA
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 906
If the cost was only $100 there remains no justifiable reason to install such a system other than to think you are saving the environment.

It's those who are committed to turning every waterway into an NDZ who think they're saving the environment! But treated waste doesn't harm the environment...in fact, 1000 boats anchored in the same area, all flushing through a PuraSan or ElectroScan would do less environmental damage to that area than just ONE illegally dumped holding tank.

Federal law requires that the discharge from a Type I MSD have a max. bacteria count of 1000/100mltr...the discharge from a a PuraSan or ElectroScan is <10/100 mltr--well below the federal standard of 200/100 mltr for safe swimming conditions. The BOD from each flush is less than that from 4 oak leaves landing in the water.

Representative Jim Saxton (R-NJ)--now retired--tried to amend the federal law to reduce the allowable bacteria count and BOD to those levels and allow boats equipped with devices that meet that standard to use them in all waters including NDZs. He introduced bills to do that for five consecutive years, but none ever even made it to the floor of the House for a vote.... The environmental lobby prevented every one of them from ever making it out of committee.

So Instead of dealing with onboard sewage in any way that makes sense, we have to "do the right thing" by turning our boats into honey wagons...putting toilet waste in tanks to be carted off to sewage treatment plants that dump it along with millions more gallons of a lot more damaging sewage into the water every time there's a heavy rain. As I posted in another thread here recently, I've always considered it to the ultimate irony that the very DAY Rhode Island's statewide NDZ law went into effect, a massive treatment plant spill in Providence closed all the beaches and shellfish beds at that end of Narragansett Bay for a week.

Peggie
http://www.amazon.com/New-Get-Rid-Bo...dp/1892399784/
"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't completely understand it yourself." --Albert Einstein
__________________
2016 Peggie Hall
Specializing in marine sanitation since '87.
Author "The NEW Get Rid of Boat Odors"
HeadMistress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2016, 06:28 PM   #25
Guru
 
HeadMistress's Avatar


 
City: AR
Country: USA
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by FF View Post
Overboard discharge is only allowed miles out at sea , so why is the discharge sea cock underwater?
Because most people don't enjoy smelling the contents of their holding tank spewing out the side of their boat.

Peggie
http://www.amazon.com/New-Get-Rid-Bo...dp/1892399784/
"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't completely understand it yourself." --Albert Einstein
__________________
2016 Peggie Hall
Specializing in marine sanitation since '87.
Author "The NEW Get Rid of Boat Odors"
HeadMistress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2016, 06:51 PM   #26
Art
Guru
 
Art's Avatar
 
City: SF Bay Area
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Tollycraft 34' Tri Cabin
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
Classic TF....

What works for me and is worth it may not be to you....

All I did was blow giant holes I your statements about cost and some justification.

But I agree that in YOUR case and some others, they might be a waste of money...in fact I agonized over it too till I saw the benifits for me.

Not all things o TF are absolute...no matter how some try to make them...

And poking fun at some of the folks that may risk their lives dealing with a problem you might have is in bad taste...but you do have that right.
Whatever any of us do regarding human waste; i.e. holding, treatment, or disposal... we must be sure to never do anything illegal!

Art is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2016, 06:58 PM   #27
Moderator Emeritus
 
BruceK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 6,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadMistress View Post

Federal law requires that the discharge from a Type I MSD have a max. bacteria count of 1000/100mltr...the discharge from a a PuraSan or ElectroScan is <10/100 mltr--well below the federal standard of 200/100 mltr for safe swimming conditions. The BOD from each flush is less than we have to "do the right thing" by turning our boats into honey wagons...putting toilet waste in tanks to be carted off to sewage treatment plants that dump it along with millions more gallons of a lot more damaging sewage into the water every time there's a heavy rain...

Peggie
You`re right, it is near madness compelling little boats to find install and maintain an onboard sewerage system. Even cruise ships struggle to keep them working. Sydney Water has just upgraded their system for diverting sewage to the harbor in heavy rain, I often saw "brown sludge" on the water in the bay near home where we used to moor. To think I once swam there,"undeterred".
__________________
BruceK
Island Gypsy 36 Europa "Doriana"
Sydney Australia
BruceK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2016, 07:11 PM   #28
Guru
 
78puget-trawler's Avatar
 
City: LaConner
Country: USA
Vessel Model: 34' CHB
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 584
I grew up on a houseboat on Lake Union in Seattle in the 50's and early 60's before the houseboats were hooked up to the sewer system. I can clearly remember pushing various and sundry unsanitary items out of the way while we swam off the house in the summer. All the houseboats just dumped their toilets into the lake, straight shot. We never thought anything of it. I remember my dad squealed like a stuck pig when the city mandated that the houseboats had to get onto the sewer system for a cost, that to my often semi broke dad was horrendous. Lake is much cleaner now though.
78puget-trawler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2016, 07:21 PM   #29
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 12,959
Still classic TF and in all my travels...the only LEO guys on the water I have run across were the guys you needed when the chips were down.

Yep....easy to figure out....
psneeld is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2016, 07:29 PM   #30
Art
Guru
 
Art's Avatar
 
City: SF Bay Area
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Tollycraft 34' Tri Cabin
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by 78puget-trawler View Post
I grew up on a houseboat on Lake Union in Seattle in the 50's and early 60's before the houseboats were hooked up to the sewer system. I can clearly remember pushing various and sundry unsanitary items out of the way while we swam off the house in the summer. All the houseboats just dumped their toilets into the lake, straight shot. We never thought anything of it. I remember my dad squealed like a stuck pig when the city mandated that the houseboats had to get onto the sewer system for a cost, that to my often semi broke dad was horrendous. Lake is much cleaner now though.
1960's... My dad was hopping mad when in NY things began to be mentioned regarding treatments and holding tanks and other means of caring for pleasure boat waste sanitation. I've many times swam in waters where waste debris was too often encountered. Then again, I've had strong immune system rest of my life. I guess, exposure is not always bad - at least in the long run!
Art is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2016, 07:35 PM   #31
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 12,959
the typical postings and misconceptions of boats and sewage issues could fill the library of Congress.

there are of course situations that are distasteful, but the vast majority of cruisers would never be a problem for others...mostly just the dock condos and sandbar weekenders are.
psneeld is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2016, 06:11 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
City: Green Cove Springs, Florida
Country: USA
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 180
Send a message via Skype™ to bglad
I have come across this system in a couple of boats:

http://raritaneng.com/pdf_files/hold...holdntreat.pdf

Permits using your holding tank to buffer your discharges so you are not waiting between flushes. Would seem to cover your circumstance pretty well.
bglad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2016, 07:42 AM   #33
Art
Guru
 
Art's Avatar
 
City: SF Bay Area
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Tollycraft 34' Tri Cabin
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by bglad View Post
I have come across this system in a couple of boats:

http://raritaneng.com/pdf_files/hold...holdntreat.pdf

Permits using your holding tank to buffer your discharges so you are not waiting between flushes. Would seem to cover your circumstance pretty well.
Underwater outlet makes me nervous; re diagram in your link... but that could be remedied - I quess.

We have two heads. One is LectraSan for acceptable water-areas and one is 30 gal. tank with specially arranged very-low flush toilet (allowing no overboard evac. / i.e. pump out only). Works well for us and keeps things legal.
Art is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2016, 08:06 AM   #34
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 12,959
The underwater outlet is a typical install with vented loop to prevent siphoning...

Any particular reason for a needed remedy?
psneeld is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2016, 08:26 AM   #35
Art
Guru
 
Art's Avatar
 
City: SF Bay Area
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Tollycraft 34' Tri Cabin
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
The underwater outlet is a typical install with vented loop to prevent siphoning...

Any particular reason for a needed remedy?
Just don't trust vented loop for underwater discharge... in the l-o-n-g run that is; especially when that is not really necessary, as in this case. As they say: Shat Happens!!
Art is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2016, 11:11 AM   #36
FOG
Senior Member
 
City: Wilmington, NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: DreamQuest
Vessel Model: Prairie 36
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by bglad View Post
I have come across this system in a couple of boats:

http://raritaneng.com/pdf_files/hold...holdntreat.pdf

Permits using your holding tank to buffer your discharges so you are not waiting between flushes. Would seem to cover your circumstance pretty well.

This system looks very interesting and might be the best solution for my application.
Thanks for the post.
FOG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2016, 11:24 AM   #37
Guru
 
dhays's Avatar
 
City: Gig Harbor
Country: United States
Vessel Name: Kinship
Vessel Model: North Pacific 43
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 2,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by foggysail View Post
Peggy--

You have not justified spending $3K+ for on board treatment. Other than having a "feel good, I just saved the waterways" sensation there is no justification. If an installed, working system was allowed to dump into NDZs, I would bite my tongue, say no more against crack pot environmentalists and just install one.

I may be wrong but I don't think that Peggy was trying to justify the cost, only to clarify the areas where it could be used. We spend all kinds of money on our boats that others may think is unjustified.

I see several reasons why someone may want to install such a system.
1) Being able to avoid the inconvenience of having a holding tank pumped out.
2) Being able to continue to use a head in areas without adequate pump out facilities.
3) Producing less of an environmental impact in areas that do allow overboard discharge.

Whether those reasons are enough to warrant the cost and added system maintenance/complexity is entirely a different question answerable only by the individual boater.
__________________
Regards,

Dave
SPOT page
dhays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2016, 12:46 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
City: Ashland
Country: United States
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhays View Post
I may be wrong but I don't think that Peggy was trying to justify the cost, only to clarify the areas where it could be used. We spend all kinds of money on our boats that others may think is unjustified.

I see several reasons why someone may want to install such a system.
1) Being able to avoid the inconvenience of having a holding tank pumped out.
2) Being able to continue to use a head in areas without adequate pump out facilities.
3) Producing less of an environmental impact in areas that do allow overboard discharge.

Whether those reasons are enough to warrant the cost and added system maintenance/complexity is entirely a different question answerable only by the individual boater.

You must have skipped reading my post 15 in this thread. I clearly stated that IF such a system allowed pump out in NDZ I WOULD GLADLY PURCHASE AND INSTALL ONE. Reasonable cost (below $5K) has nothing to do with my willingness to purchase and install an approved system. I doubt Peggy misunderstands my position in this matter.

But you say these systems allow being able to avoid the inconvenience of having a holding tank pumped out. GEEZ--- you obviously do not understand that onboard treated waste is forbidden to be dumped in NDZ, treated or untreated. The law does not allow you to avoid the inconvenience of a pump out if in a NDZ.

So if you are one of the apparent many who prefer treating waste prior to discharge while in a zone that permits waste discharge that is just fine. I am not inclined to do so.
foggysail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2016, 01:15 PM   #39
Guru
 
HeadMistress's Avatar


 
City: AR
Country: USA
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 906
Underwater outlet makes me nervous;

Why should a holding tank discharge thru-hull below waterline make you any more nervous than a a below-waterline flush water inlet thru-hull for a sea water toilet or a direct overboard discharge thru-hull for a toilet (they're always below waterline)??? Or a below-waterline inlet for a HVAC pump, or a below waterline thru-hull for a sea water cooled engine...below waterline thru-hull for a sea water washdown pump...???
Peggie
http://www.amazon.com/New-Get-Rid-Bo...dp/1892399784/
"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't completely understand it yourself." --Albert Einstein
__________________
2016 Peggie Hall
Specializing in marine sanitation since '87.
Author "The NEW Get Rid of Boat Odors"
HeadMistress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2016, 02:01 PM   #40
Guru
 
HeadMistress's Avatar


 
City: AR
Country: USA
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 906
I doubt Peggy misunderstands my position in this matter.

Nope...I understand your position completely.

But you say these systems allow being able to avoid the inconvenience of having a holding tank pumped out. GEEZ--- you obviously do not understand that onboard treated waste is forbidden to be dumped in NDZ, treated or untreated. The law does not allow you to avoid the inconvenience of a pump out if in a NDZ.

Climb down off your soapbox...everyone does understand that...it's you who are missing the point. No one is advocating using a treatment device in a NDZ. But if a boat has ONLY a holding tank, ALL toilet waste has go into it even in waters where the discharge of treated waste is legal. A treatment device doesn't REPLACE a holding tank, it just makes it unnecessary to use it EXCEPT when in a NDZ.

Peggie
http://www.amazon.com/New-Get-Rid-Bo...dp/1892399784/
"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't completely understand it yourself." --Albert Einstein
__________________

__________________
2016 Peggie Hall
Specializing in marine sanitation since '87.
Author "The NEW Get Rid of Boat Odors"
HeadMistress is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012