marine heads
Michael Colfer
You make a box, see, that a five gallon bucket will fit into...cut a hole
in the bottom of the box that will secure the bottom of the bucket. Over
the top you install a nice wooden toilet seat. You splice a lanyard to
the bucket handle. Fill 1/4 full with clean water. When you have done
your business you chuck it over the side. No moving parts. No valves.
No leak. Never fails. Don't tell the Coast Guard I told you about this
great secret. When rinsing the bucket and refilling under way, be sure
to drop the bucket in with the opening facing aft. Otherwise the bucket
may haul you off the boat. Flushed away, sort of. A shitty way to go,
right?
Peggie Hall
Wrong...the dumping of untreated sewage from ANY source aboard a
vessel is illegal now--including "bucket & chuck it."
BTW...In the 10 years I've been in the marine sanitation business, I've
never found it necessary to use that kind of language to discuss it.
Peggie Hall/Peal Products
Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987
Terry Schell
Peggie Hall <peg...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
I bit edgy, eh, Peggy? Michael was clear that this method was
illegal, that is why he did not want you to tell the CG that *he* told
you to do it. If you object to Michael's use of a pun that included
the word "shitty"... take a valium.
Sincerely,
Terry "people-who-cannot-see-some-humor-in-marine-plumbing-should-
not-be-allowed-on-boats" Schell
Paul Kamen
tsc...@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) writes:
>If you object to Michael's use of a pun that included
>the word "shitty"... take a valium.
I dunno, maybe if we all used words like "shitty" more often it would
make AOL block this newsgroup from its members..... [ducking]
--
fish...@netcom.com
http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html
-"Call me Fishmeal"-
Richard Edwards
Peggie Hall wrote:
>
>
> BTW...In the 10 years I've been in the marine sanitation business, I've
> never found it necessary to use that kind of language to discuss it.
>
He's a regular potty mouth.
Bill Driscoll
In article <fishmealE...@netcom.com>, fish...@netcom.com says...
>
> Is this federal or local law? And, does it make any provision at all for
> small boats with no installed heads? Have they effectively made it
> impossible to sail a small open boat for more than a couple of hours at a
> time without doing something illegal?
Why would it be any more LEGAL to pee in a bay than to pull car over and
pee along the highway?
--
Bill Driscoll
Pensacola, FL. USA
Peggie Hall
Actually, Bill...neither one is illegal--as long as you don't leave any paper
behind--that falls under littering. You have to put it in something first and then dump
that to run afoul of any laws.
Peggie Hall/Peal Products
Specializing in marine toilet systems since 1987
Peggie Hall
Peggie Hall
Paul Kamen wrote:
>
> Peggie Hall <peg...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >Wrong...the dumping of untreated sewage from ANY source aboard a
> >vessel is illegal now--including "bucket & chuck it."
>
> small boats with no installed heads? Have they effectively made it
> impossible to sail a small open boat for more than a couple of hours at a
> time without doing something illegal?
It's always been illegal under federal Title 36...it became illegall in
coastal waters under the MARPOL treat--which is the same one that led to
"Trash management plans" and stickers...and it's been adopted into just
about every state's "zero discharge" legislation.
However, there is NO law--except for those having to do with indecent
exposure --against REALLY "direct discharge" from above or in the water.
So heave to and go swimming!
Peggie Hall/Peal Products
Specializing in marine toilet systems since 9187
Paul Kamen
Peggie Hall <peg...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Wrong...the dumping of untreated sewage from ANY source aboard a
>vessel is illegal now--including "bucket & chuck it."
Is this federal or local law? And, does it make any provision at all for
small boats with no installed heads? Have they effectively made it
impossible to sail a small open boat for more than a couple of hours at a
time without doing something illegal?
--
greg harms
>BTW...In the 10 years I've been in the marine sanitation business, I've
>never found it necessary to use that kind of language to discuss it.
Hmmm. In my years of engineering when dealing with waste treatment systems
(not for boats) I have made a regular habit of using the word "shit" to
describe the same. A spade being a spade, after all.
But then I guess I may be a regular law breaker... ;-)
Denis S/V Tayana
tsc...@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) writes: > Peggie Hall <peg...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >Michael Colfer wrote:
> >>
> >> You make a box, see, that a five gallon bucket will fit into...cut a hole
> >> in the bottom of the box that will secure the bottom of the bucket. Over
> >> the top you install a nice wooden toilet seat. You splice a lanyard to
> >> the bucket handle. Fill 1/4 full with clean water. When you have done
> >> your business you chuck it over the side. No moving parts. No valves.
> >> No leak. Never fails. Don't tell the Coast Guard I told you about this
> >> great secret. When rinsing the bucket and refilling under way, be sure
> >> to drop the bucket in with the opening facing aft. Otherwise the bucket
> >> may haul you off the boat. Flushed away, sort of. A shitty way to go,
> >> right?
>
> >vessel is illegal now--including "bucket & chuck it."
>
> >never found it necessary to use that kind of language to discuss it.
>
> illegal, that is why he did not want you to tell the CG that *he* told
> the word "shitty"... take a valium.
>
> Terry "people-who-cannot-see-some-humor-in-marine-plumbing-should-
> not-be-allowed-on-boats" Schell
MY wife calls it the "LU" or " Lou" and it certainly is the place
I got to know very well when we purchased our CT. And yes it was a
shitty job, someone had to do it, but oh the pride when I said
"Look dear it's working" , well it worked once and plugged up again,
and I got to apply all my new knowledge one more time. How proud I was!
PS I assume you know it was invented by Thomas Crapper.
Denis
SV Tayana
Denis S/V Tayana
fish...@netcom.com (Paul Kamen) writes: > Peggie Hall <peg...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >Wrong...the dumping of untreated sewage from ANY source aboard a
> >vessel is illegal now--including "bucket & chuck it."
>
> small boats with no installed heads? Have they effectively made it
> impossible to sail a small open boat for more than a couple of hours at a
> time without doing something illegal?
>
> --
> fish...@netcom.com
> http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html
>
> -"Call me Fishmeal"-
Without a holding tank,
My toilet taped shut with a sign"sealed and not to be used"
and a bucket in the shower stall...To be disposed of "later in a legal Manner"
Denis
SV Tayana
LIBRAYACHT
Denis on the S/V Tayana asks whether taping his head closed and using a
bucket would be legal in US waters. In most states taping it shut would
not be suficient. The Coastguard and Marine Patrol here in Florida have
determined that the head must be disabled in such a manner that it cannot
be used. Closing the discharge seacock and securing it with a cable tie
has been deemed insufficient here. Locking it closed with some form of
security device such as a padlock where the key is in the sole custody and
control of the captain would be sufficient.
However since the enactment of the Florida Clean Vessel Act that is still
not sufficient if you intend to spend more than twenty days aboard in any
period of 31. You are then classed as a houseboat and the law states that
the vessel MUST be equipped with a holding tank.
For anyone with electric heads you have a major advantage where disabling
is concerned. You can insert a simple key switch in the electrical feed to
the flush button, thus preventing the head from being flushed and
disabling the system. The keys must be in the care, custody and control of
the captain.
John.
Bruce P. Barden
In article <330DAD...@worldnet.att.net>,
Peggie Hall <peg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Michael Colfer wrote:
>>
>> You make a box, see, that a five gallon bucket will fit into...cut a hole
>> in the bottom of the box that will secure the bottom of the bucket. Over
>
>vessel is illegal now--including "bucket & chuck it."
>
That is a _bit_ inaccurate, as I understand it. I had not
yet heard of a regulation concerning vessels on "the high
seas."
>
>Peggie Hall/Peal Products
>Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987
>
>
--
Bruce P. Barden
bar...@ibm.net
Bangkok, Thailand
Bruce P. Barden
In article <5elkpr$45...@elmo.cadvision.com>,
Denis S/V Tayana <dbea...@cadvision.com> wrote:
>fish...@netcom.com (Paul Kamen) writes: > Peggie Hall <peg...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>
>>
>Without a holding tank,
>My toilet taped shut with a sign"sealed and not to be used"
>and a bucket in the shower stall...To be disposed of "later in a legal Manner"
>Denis
>SV Tayana
I don't think that you have to keep it in the shower. Put
it right out in the lounge, under the table if you want..
;-}
Bruce P. Barden
In article <fishmealE...@netcom.com>,
fish...@netcom.com (Paul Kamen) wrote:
> Peggie Hall <peg...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >Wrong...the dumping of untreated sewage from ANY source aboard a
> >vessel is illegal now--including "bucket & chuck it."
>
>Is this federal or local law? And, does it make any provision at all for
>impossible to sail a small open boat for more than a couple of hours at a
>time without doing something illegal?
>
>--
>fish...@netcom.com
>http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html
>
> -"Call me Fishmeal"-
Gives a whole new meaning to the old British term, "Get
knotted!"
Peggie Hall
Bruce P. Barden wrote:
>
> In article <330DAD...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Peggie Hall <peg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Michael Colfer wrote:
> >>
> >> You make a box, see, that a five gallon bucket will fit into...cut a hole
> >> in the bottom of the box that will secure the bottom of the bucket. Over
>
> >
> >vessel is illegal now--including "bucket & chuck it."
> >
>
> That is a _bit_ inaccurate, as I understand it. I had not
> yet heard of a regulation concerning vessels on "the high
> seas."
>
>
> >
> >Peggie Hall/Peal Products
> >Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987
> >
> >
>
No, US marine sanitation laws do not apply beyond 3 miles of the coast
of the US...up to 12 miles in the Gulf of Mexico...those are
international waters. But the DO apply to all US waters, which include
"the high seas" within 3 miles.
Peggie Hall/Peal Products
Specializing in marine toilet systems since 1987
hsherman
Michael Colfer wrote:
>
> You make a box, see, that a five gallon bucket will fit into...cut a hole
> in the bottom of the box that will secure the bottom of the bucket. Over
> the bucket handle. Fill 1/4 full with clean water. When you have done
> your business you chuck it over the side. No moving parts. No valves.
> No leak. Never fails. Don't tell the Coast Guard I told you about this
> great secret. When rinsing the bucket and refilling under way, be sure
> to drop the bucket in with the opening facing aft. Otherwise the bucket
> may haul you off the boat. Flushed away, sort of. A shitty way to go,
> right?
Peggie Hall
Unfortunately, it's not...at least not in any state that has enacted
legislation to enforce federal marine sanitation laws. And that's a key
issue: states cannot enact legislation that supercedes federal laws,
but they can opt whether to enforce federal laws within their
boundaries. A state must first enact legislation to do so, charge a
state agency with enforcement, and then fund it. The Coast Guard has
jurisdiction over all interstate waterways, the states over intrastate
bodies of water...which has led to mass confusion in some places.
Additionally, state health department laws can be applied to boats as
well as to land facilities.
Title 36 of the CFR governs all Corps of Engineers bodies of water; it
specifically prohibits the discharge OR dumping of sewage. CFR 140.3
governs all interstate waterways; it prohibits the discharge of
untreated sewage...and WOULD make "bucket & chuck it" legal if every
state didn't have health laws which make it just as illegal as tossing
it out the window onto the street. Every state which has adopted marine
sanitation laws has closed the "b & c" loophole by making the "dumping"
of untreated sewage from any source also illegal.
The MARPOL treaty made the dumping of non-garbage trash illegal in all
waters--even the "high seas," and made the discharge OR dumping of
untreated sewage illegal in the harbors & waterways of all countries
which have laws against it.
What IS legal everywhere is "direct discharge" from you into the
water--whether from above it or while in it...the only law you can
possibly break are those relating to indecent exposure.
Mark Armstrong
Peggie Hall wrote:
>
>
> What IS legal everywhere is "direct discharge" from you into the
> water--whether from above it or while in it...the only law you can
> possibly break are those relating to indecent exposure.
>
So technically, I could build a "outhouse" style head, maybe a
curtain around the pulpit and do a direct discharge and be legal?
I love regulations :-)
Mark
Peggie Hall
Nope.... The CFR defines a Marine Sanitation Device as: "Any equipment
installed aboard a vessel designed to receive, retain, treat or
discharge sewage, and any process to treat such sewage." (BTW, "sewage"
is defined as "human body waste," period.)
Since your outhouse would receive sewage--even though it's passing
through--it qualifies as a marine sanitation device. OTOH, urinating
into a scupper or cockpit drain is NOT illegal...because they aren't
devices designed to receive or discharge sewage.
Yep...regulations can certainly be entertaining! <g>
Peggie Hall
Igor Kapuscinski wrote:
>
> So Peggy how do you explain that on recent charter from Moorings my
> friend was told not to use holding tank. He observed that most charter
> boats over there discharge directly into the water. What laws do apply
> to charter companies, it looks like none.
Over where?
Charter vessels are subject to the same laws as every other private
non-commercial vessel. If the charter was in US waters, then the
Moorings gave him bad information that could have cost him a big fine.
However, the BVI does yet not have--or at least they don't enforce--any
"zero discharge" laws. According to my (usually highly reliable)
sources, the USVI have recently declared their waters ZD, but don't have
but one pumpout station anyone's been able to find--and it's rather
marginal in its capability to operate. The CG there hasn't handed out
any fines yet, but are giving warnings.
Don't confuse the MARPOL treaty with US sanitation laws...it mostly
applies to commercial vessels anyway--big freighters etc, although some
provisions do apply to all of us. When it comes to "sewage"--which is
defined under US marine sanitation regs as "human body waste" (pee &
poop)ONLY--MARPOL doesn't require non-commercial (including charters) to
hold sewage in the waters of any country that doesn't already prohibit
its discharge. So if your friends chartered in the BVI, they didn't have
to use their holding tank. Had they chartered in the Chesapeake Bay,
they would have.
Igor Kapuscinski
Peggie Hall wrote:
So Peggy how do you explain that on recent charter from Moorings my
friend was told not to use holding tank. He observed that most charter
boats over there discharge directly into the water. What laws do apply
to charter companies, it looks like none.
It is possible that meaning of sewage does not apply to "pee and poop"
then it is legal to dispose of it.
--
Igor Kapuscinski
SE Silver Spring Office
Voice: 301-572-8908, Fax:301-572-3280
Peggie Hall
Paul Kamen wrote:
>
> Thanx for that clarification of jurisdictions, Peggy.
>
> One last question: Is there a definition of "untreated sewage" that would
> make it okay to dump a bucket overboard if some appropriate amount of
> chlorine (or other appropriate chemical) had been stirred in?
No...The definition of "treated sewage" is anything except what goes
through a CG certified Type I or Type II MSD...and those devices are
certified in prototype by the mfr, who has to affix all kinds of
mandated labelling on each one they produce. There is nothing an
individual boat owner can do...nothing we can add to our holding
tanks...that will make the discharge "legal"--even if it tests to
potable water quality.
Ironically, it's only necessary to prove that you have a CG certified
device installed, and that the toilet flushes into it...there is no
mandated sampling to prove that what comes out actually meets the o'bd
discharge standards. OTOH, there's nothing preventing any law
enforcement body from deciding to take samples, either.
Paul Kamen
jez
Hmm, sounds like there's a market for an old-fashioned 'thunder box',
wher the 'toilet' is just a plank with a hole cut in it. Maybe a
21st centuary version, a swivelling beam with a self-erecting tent. you
sit on it in the cockpit, the tend erects itself and the contraption
swings out board. You could even hook it up to the GPS to log the log.
We could call it a Jezzer!. Would it have more drag than a 'spray hood'?
On a more serious note, dumping excrement into the seas is a matter of
government policy over here. The Shit Ships (artistic alliteration
allowed?) Still leave from Ipswich docks and elsewhere to dump the
stuff in the N.Sea and many seaside towns discharge sewage directly.
But now the use a longer pipe. Makes you feel really good about falling
off the windurfer.
Jez -is that a tan, or have you been swimming :-(
Mel Haylock
In terms of the environment, the chlorine is more harmful than the
human waste. Human waste is biodegradeable -chlorine is toxic to
marine flora and fauna. The sight & smell notwithstanding, the only
health problem with discharging raw human waste is it may contain
disease bacteria and/or viruses -which could spread disease if in
close proximity to others.
Terry Schell
Mel Haylock <Mel_H...@nt.com> writes:
Exactly! I think that there should be a law that you cannot dump any
sewage if there is another boat or the shore within, say, 400 meters.
On a clear day... just look around and "dump if the coast is clear."
This policy is "polite" and avoids any damaging concentration of human
waste. If you want to talk about the pollution that is damaging our
lakes and oceans it comes from three sources: (1) agricultural runoff -
pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, massive amounts of topsoil; (2)
industrial sources - chemicals like dioxins, heavy metals, acid rain;
and (3) transportation - mostly hydrocarbons from two-strokes, oil
residue from pavement runoff, spillage from the drilling and
tranportation of oil.
Human waste from boating is just a scapegoat... human waste from
residential areas is not even a big problem if it can be sufficiently
diluted (so it is a problem for areas around LA, NYC, Chicago, etc).
It is just that there is no "boating excrement" lobby in washington...
I doubt this constituency has formed a cohesive political group in
many countries. :-)
Sincerely,
Terry "rant-mode-on" Schell
Peggie Hall
Terry Schell wrote:
>
> Mel Haylock <Mel_H...@nt.com> writes:
>
> >In terms of the environment, the chlorine is more harmful than the
> >human waste. Human waste is biodegradeable -chlorine is toxic to
> >marine flora and fauna. The sight & smell notwithstanding, the only
> >health problem with discharging raw human waste is it may contain
> >disease bacteria and/or viruses -which could spread disease if in
> >close proximity to others.
>
> Exactly! I think that there should be a law that you cannot dump any
> sewage if there is another boat or the shore within, say, 400 meters.
> On a clear day... just look around and "dump if the coast is clear."
>
There IS a law, called the Federal Water Pollution Act (aka "The Clean
Water Act") of 1977. (I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, that you're in the
US...if you're not, skip the rest of this message.) The discharge of
untreated sewage--and there is nothing a boat owner can do to his
holding tank to legally "treat" the contents--in any waters within 3
miles (up to 12 in the Gulf of Mexico) is prohibited by that law. The
discharge from Type I and especially Type II MSDs is cleaner--but maybe
not very pretty--than the discharge from the typical municipal sewage
treatment plant.
We offer a booklet called "Marine Sanitation: Fact vs. Folklore" which
explains US Marine Sanitation Laws, describes the equipment which meets
legal standards and how it works, system installation and odor--it's
real causes and how to install a system that won't stink. It's not
sale lit, but my seminars edited into booklet form...and it's free for
the asking...just need a snail mail address to send it to.
Peggie Hall
Mel Haylock wrote:
>
> In terms of the environment, the chlorine is more harmful than the
> human waste. Human waste is biodegradeable -chlorine is toxic to
> marine flora and fauna.
Not nearly as toxic as you think. Hypochlorous acid (chlorine) in Type
I MSDs--notably the Lectra/San--is an all natural product created by
combining electrical current and salt water--the same as is created by a
lightning strike on the ocean, and much weaker concentration. It's
highly unstable--in the sense that it doesn't like to be a compound--and
immediately begins to return to its separate elements just as fast as
possible. Formaldeyde OTOH, is indeed nasty stuff!
BTW, "biodegradable" is a meaningless feel-goodterm. Believe it or not,
formaldehyde IS "biodegradable" in the sense that it will EVENTUALLY
break down into its elements...never mind what havoc it creates in the
meantime. A product may legally be labelled "biodegradable" if as little
as 70% of the ingredients are...the remaining 30% can be as toxic as
nuclear waste! And in every case, chemical (not bacteria or enzyme)
marine sanitation products which carry the label "non-formaldehyde
formula" have only substituted another equally lethal chemcial for
formaldehyde--usually gluteraldehyde or quantenary amonium compounds.
But the chlorine in Type I MSDs has little or no impact on the
environment.
Peggie Hall/Peal Products
Specializing in marine toilet systems sine 1987
Dennie McKee
Peggy,
The Arkansas Department of Health has given notice that 1 July 1997 it
will begin enforcing the Federal "no discharge" regulation which became
effective January 1, 1980. Do you have any idea if the "no discharge"
applys to he discharge of grey water?
--
Dennie McKee dmc...@infogo.com, mck...@vs.lmco.com
106 S. Haley St. Phone 501-574-2513
E. Camden, AR 71701 Fax 501-574-2513
http://www.infogo.com/~dmckee/
Larry Layten
I did request the booklet, and it is outstanding! You did a great job
presenting the facts Peggie.
On another point -- may deserve a separate thread, but I will ask the
queston here --
Is there any type of treatment system for grey water, or is it just a
matter of holding it till you not in a "no discharge" area, or out of
a port area where you may not feel comfortable dumping?
Larry
> We offer a booklet called "Marine Sanitation: Fact vs. Folklore" which
> explains US Marine Sanitation Laws, describes the equipment which meets
> legal standards and how it works, system installation and odor--it's
> real causes and how to install a system that won't stink. It's not
> sale lit, but my seminars edited into booklet form...and it's free for
> the asking...just need a snail mail address to send it to.
>
> Peggie Hall/Peal Products
> Specializing in marine toilet systems since 1987
>
>
Peggie Hall
Larry Layten wrote:
>
> I did request the booklet, and it is outstanding! You did a great job
> presenting the facts Peggie.
>
> On another point -- may deserve a separate thread, but I will ask the
> queston here --
>
> Is there any type of treatment system for grey water, or is it just a
> matter of holding it till you not in a "no discharge" area, or out of
> a port area where you may not feel comfortable dumping?
>
> Larry
Except for commercial vessels, gray water isn't an issue anywhere in the
country. The "tree huggers" are trying to make it one, but since
phosphates have been removed--except in trace amounts--from detergents
and soaps, there's not much in gray water which can harm the
environment. After all, we're only talking about galley (dishwashing),
bath and shower water...the soaps, shampoos and toothpaste we're putting
on and in our own bodies don't present any health or environmental
hazard. Some detergents contain solvents, such as butyl, but in small
quantities and that actually helps to break up oils in the water. And
it's actually better--IMHO--to discharge gray water directly than to
hold and dump it.
Commercial vessels--big freighters etc--are a different issue. What goes
into their sumps from bilges, the galley etc is a lot more and a lot
different from what's on your boat and mine. There are major pollutants
involved...and it makes sense to require them to hold everything.
Thanks for the compliment, BTW...I'm looking at expanding the booklet
sometime this year to answer more questions and go into more detail
about systems maintenance and operation.
Terry Schell
Peggie Hall <peg...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Terry Schell wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> Exactly! I think that there should be a law that you cannot dump any
>> sewage if there is another boat or the shore within, say, 400 meters.
>> On a clear day... just look around and "dump if the coast is clear."
>>
>There IS a law, called the Federal Water Pollution Act (aka "The Clean
>Water Act") of 1977. (I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, that you're in the
>US...if you're not, skip the rest of this message.) The discharge of
>untreated sewage--and there is nothing a boat owner can do to his
>holding tank to legally "treat" the contents--in any waters within 3
>miles (up to 12 in the Gulf of Mexico) is prohibited by that law. The
>discharge from Type I and especially Type II MSDs is cleaner--but maybe
>not very pretty--than the discharge from the typical municipal sewage
>treatment plant.
I am familar with this law... I was suggesting a set of laws that were
somewhat more "sane". Something *far* less restrictive of the human
waste from boaters; laws were the degree of restriction was in some
way related to the degree of environmental threat. The current set of
laws allows huge deposits of toxins in our water, but forces boat
owners to pay thousands to prevent a little doody from getting in the
water. That money would be far better spent on preventing ag run-off
from reaching our streams and lakes.
Sincerely,
Terry "dreaming-of-rational-environmental-laws" Schell
Peggie Hall
Dennis, I'm a consultant to AR Health on this issue...the draft of the
new legislation does NOT include gray water. And apparently, the
deadlines for black water compliance are going "roll out" on various
lakes, depending upon the availability of pump out facilities. Lakes
Ouchita and--I THINK--Greeson will have a July 1 deadline...I'm not sure
about the others. The person who will know is Pat Harris at AR
Health...he's in charge of the program. His phone # is 501-661-2171.
Vasilis Riginos
In article <5f9qvg$b...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, tsc...@s.psych.uiuc.edu
(Terry Schell) wrote:
> I am familar with this law... I was suggesting a set of laws that were
> somewhat more "sane". Something *far* less restrictive of the human
> waste from boaters; laws were the degree of restriction was in some
> way related to the degree of environmental threat. The current set of
> laws allows huge deposits of toxins in our water, but forces boat
> owners to pay thousands to prevent a little doody from getting in the
> water. That money would be far better spent on preventing ag run-off
> from reaching our streams and lakes.
>
This is too rational and sells no equipment!
Philip N. Hooge
Peggie Hall wrote:
>
> Mel Haylock wrote:
> >
> > In terms of the environment, the chlorine is more harmful than the
> > human waste. Human waste is biodegradeable -chlorine is toxic to
> > marine flora and fauna.
>
> Not nearly as toxic as you think. Hypochlorous acid (chlorine) in Type
> I MSDs--notably the Lectra/San--is an all natural product created by
> combining electrical current and salt water--the same as is created by
>
> Specializing in marine toilet systems sine 1987
I was looking favorably at installing a Lectra/San and then was told
that it is one of the foulest smelling of the type I MSDs. Has anyone
had direct experience with this device?
Philip Hooge
David E. Wendt
> Wrong...the dumping of untreated sewage from ANY source aboard a
> vessel is illegal now--including "bucket & chuck it."
> Peggie Hall/Peal Products
> Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987
obviously _you_ don't watch Bevis and Butthead...thats ok...
soo, madam...
when ya gotta go...ya gotta go...
in the bushes...
or over the side...
lettit flo...lettit flo...
no authority can make bodily functions illegal. PERIOD.
no MSD lobby can spend enough money to accomplish same. PERIOD.
--
David E. Wendt
S.V. "eve'n'Star" [Tartan 34 #366]
LIBRAYACHT
I do not know of any state right now which controls the discharge of gray
water from showers and sinks. Very few boats have provision for the
holding of such high volumes on board. However you will need to check
carefully to determine if your state intends to enforce true "no
discharge" ordinances. If so you will be banned from using on board
treatment systems such as the Lectrasan. There are many cruising areas,
and this is increasing daily, that are insisting on the head discharge
throughhull be permanently sealed when in those areas.
John Scales
Peggie Hall
Philip N. Hooge wrote:
>
> Peggie Hall wrote:
> >
> > Mel Haylock wrote:
> > >
> > > In terms of the environment, the chlorine is more harmful than the
> > > human waste. Human waste is biodegradeable -chlorine is toxic to
> > > marine flora and fauna.
> >
> > Not nearly as toxic as you think. Hypochlorous acid (chlorine) in Type
> > I MSDs--notably the Lectra/San--is an all natural product created by
> > combining electrical current and salt water--the same as is created by
> >
> > Specializing in marine toilet systems sine 1987
>
> I was looking favorably at installing a Lectra/San and then was told
> that it is one of the foulest smelling of the type I MSDs. Has anyone
> had direct experience with this device?
>
> Philip Hooge
If not properly maintained, they certainly can stink--primarily from
stagnant sea water used in flushing. However, using Raritan's
contentrated deoderizing chemical along with flushing the sea water out
with fresh water before closing up the boat usually solves the problem.
Peggie Hall/Peal Products
Specializing in marine toilet systems since 1987
Peggie Hall
Terry Schell wrote:
>
> Peggie Hall <peg...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >Terry Schell wrote:
> <snip>
> >>
> >> Exactly! I think that there should be a law that you cannot dump any
> >> sewage if there is another boat or the shore within, say, 400 meters.
> >> On a clear day... just look around and "dump if the coast is clear."
> >>
>
> >There IS a law, called the Federal Water Pollution Act (aka "The Clean
> >Water Act") of 1977. (I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, that you're in the
> >US...if you're not, skip the rest of this message.) The discharge of
> >untreated sewage--and there is nothing a boat owner can do to his
> >holding tank to legally "treat" the contents--in any waters within 3
> >miles (up to 12 in the Gulf of Mexico) is prohibited by that law. The
> >discharge from Type I and especially Type II MSDs is cleaner--but maybe
> >not very pretty--than the discharge from the typical municipal sewage
> >treatment plant.
>
> somewhat more "sane". Something *far* less restrictive of the human
> waste from boaters; laws were the degree of restriction was in some
> way related to the degree of environmental threat. The current set of
> laws allows huge deposits of toxins in our water, but forces boat
> owners to pay thousands to prevent a little doody from getting in the
> water. That money would be far better spent on preventing ag run-off
> from reaching our streams and lakes.
>
> Terry "dreaming-of-rational-environmental-laws" Schell
What you're referring to is called "non-point runoff"--pollutants from
no specific source...and controlling it is nigh onto impossible.
Waterfront subdivisions: storm drains carry off lawn & garden products,
oil etc from driveways and roads...Your local shopping center: all the
junk that gets left behind in its parking lot finds its way into the
water...and it comes from miles away. It's impossible to control at
anything resembling a reasonable cost. Are you willing to let your yard
be over-run with weeds, pay $2,000 more for a car with a system that
catches every oil drip...pay $100 to have your old tire taken away when
you buy new ones? That and much much more is what it would take to even
begin to make a dent in it.
"Point" pollution, OTOH, can be targeted and stopped. Factories can be
made to stop spewing smoke, open sewer pipes can be plugged...and boats
can be required to treat and/or hold our miniscule contribution to the
problem.
Everybody wants easy answers to complex problems...and everybody thinks
those answers should cover everybody else. But that ain't the way the
world works....<sigh>
Peggie Hall/Peal Products
Specializing in marine toilet systems since 1987
(And a boat owner who has to live with the same things you do)
Ron Dwelle
For what it's worth, the State of Michigan has a prohibition against
grey-water discharge which--as far as I know--has never ever been
enforced. It was made law before phosphates were removed from soap, and
has been larglely ignored since then.
In Canada (Ontario), grey water legislation is again being considered,
after being rejected in the past few years. The current proposal calls
for requiring all new boats to be fitted with grey-water tanks, but not
retrofitting older boats. The Ontario Boating Federation is actively
opposing it. (Maybe someone on the list can send an address of OBF--I
can't locate my info). Canada has never required phosphates to be
removed from detergents, as the US did.
--
Ron Dwelle; 349 Lenora NW; Grand Rapids, Michigan 49504
616-453-2708;616-453-7068 (fax)
dwe...@river.it.gvsu.edu; http://www2.gvsu.edu/~dweller
"There's magic in the web..." Shakespeare, _Othello_, III, iv, 69
Ron Dwelle
Terry Schell wrote:
> I am familar with this law... I was suggesting a set of laws that were
> somewhat more "sane". Something *far* less restrictive of the human
> waste from boaters; laws were the degree of restriction was in some
> way related to the degree of environmental threat. The current set of
> laws allows huge deposits of toxins in our water, but forces boat
> owners to pay thousands to prevent a little doody from getting in the
> water. That money would be far better spent on preventing ag run-off
> from reaching our streams and lakes.
> Sincerely,
> Terry "dreaming-of-rational-environmental-laws" Schell
I agree with Terry, here. I think the best thing cruisers could do is
start agitating for legal on-board treatment systems. The "zero"
discharge idea may have been reasonable in 1968, but the technology for
on-board treatment isn't that complex nowadays. And in many cruising
areas, the on-shore treatment facilities where you pump your holding
tank sewage are pathetic.
Of course, no head maker is going to waste money on R&D if the product
would be illegal. So the first thing is to get the law changed, so
onboard treatment and discharge is possible under the law.
Bill Driscoll
In article <19970301230...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
libra...@aol.com says...
> I do not know of any state right now which controls the discharge of gray
> water from showers and sinks.
be seperatly discharges to a different spot that your septic sys. Make no
sense!
--
My email address has been modified to protect
against SPAM
To reply directly please use:
bdr...@gulfsurf.infi.net
Thanks
Bill Driscoll
Pensacola, FL. USA
Michael Colfer
In article <331716...@nt.com>, Mel_H...@nt.com says...
>
>In terms of the environment, the chlorine is more harmful than the
>human waste. Human waste is biodegradeable -chlorine is toxic to
>health problem with discharging raw human waste is it may contain
>disease bacteria and/or viruses -which could spread disease if in
>close proximity to others.
The most bizarre aspect of all this is as follows: Here in Puget Sound,
if I am sailing, for example, in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, just of Port
Angeles, it is illegal for me to dump my bucket over the side, emitting
perhaps a pound or so of human waste. Twelve miles to the north, the
entire city of Victoria, B. C. is pumping its raw sewage into the Strait.
Often, sailing our waters, I pass through a patch of sewage pumped from
a holding tank, mixed with chemicals. The entire set of laws is
ludicrous, using boaters as the scapegoat for landsmen inability to get
their s**t together. (see, Peggy, I can clean up my act, so to speak).
so now I have to buy a porta potty, so when the CG comes along side I
have it to show. I'll store it right beside the bucket.
Terry Schell
Peggie Hall <peg...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
<snip>
>>
>> I am familar with this law... I was suggesting a set of laws that were
>> somewhat more "sane". Something *far* less restrictive of the human
>> waste from boaters; laws were the degree of restriction was in some
>> way related to the degree of environmental threat. The current set of
>> laws allows huge deposits of toxins in our water, but forces boat
>> owners to pay thousands to prevent a little doody from getting in the
>> water. That money would be far better spent on preventing ag run-off
>> from reaching our streams and lakes.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Terry "dreaming-of-rational-environmental-laws" Schell
>What you're referring to is called "non-point runoff"--pollutants from
>no specific source...and controlling it is nigh onto impossible.
>Waterfront subdivisions: storm drains carry off lawn & garden products,
>oil etc from driveways and roads...Your local shopping center: all the
>junk that gets left behind in its parking lot finds its way into the
>water...and it comes from miles away. It's impossible to control at
>anything resembling a reasonable cost. Are you willing to let your yard
>be over-run with weeds, pay $2,000 more for a car with a system that
>catches every oil drip...pay $100 to have your old tire taken away when
>you buy new ones? That and much much more is what it would take to even
>begin to make a dent in it.
I can point to a number of sources in the environmental liturature
that propose cost-effective solutions to many of these pollution
problems. (ie, treating urban storm sewer water, preventing run-off
from industrial farming -- both land and livestock, requiring additional
treatment of industrial water-waste) All of these measures would
provide better envoronmental protection of waterways per dollar spent
than requireing holding tanks on pleasure craft.
>"Point" pollution, OTOH, can be targeted and stopped. Factories can be
>made to stop spewing smoke, open sewer pipes can be plugged...and boats
>can be required to treat and/or hold our miniscule contribution to the
>problem.
Well, if our environmental laws were rational, we would focus effort
were we could have the largest inpact on the pollution with the
smallest economic costs. This would not involve requiring holding
tanks on pleasure boats. The environment would be better served by
spending $1000 to help terrace farmer jones's chemically treated
wheat field than installing holding tanks in a boat that produces only
trivial amounts of pollution in the course of a year. (particularly
when you consider that holding tank waste is then transported for
treatment where it undergoes what are often relatively minor changes
before being transported back to the original waterway.)
>Everybody wants easy answers to complex problems...and everybody thinks
>those answers should cover everybody else. But that ain't the way the
>world works....<sigh>
I don't understand what your point is here. I am not claiming that
the solution is simple; rather I am complaining that our current set
of clean water laws was written in part by chemical, manufacturing,
and agri business. I am proposing that we would be better served by
requlations that were drafted by environmental scientists and
economists. These regulations would almost certainly not require
holding tanks on small pleasure boats.
Sincerely,
Terry "call-me-anti-business" Schell
jack chalais
Peggie Hall wrote:
>
> Philip N. Hooge wrote:
> >
> > Peggie Hall wrote:
> > >
> > > Mel Haylock wrote:
> > > >
> > > > human waste. Human waste is biodegradeable -chlorine is toxic to
> > > > marine flora and fauna.
> > >
> > > I MSDs--notably the Lectra/San--is an all natural product created by
> > > combining electrical current and salt water--the same as is created by
> > >
> > > Specializing in marine toilet systems sine 1987
> >
> > I was looking favorably at installing a Lectra/San and then was told
> > that it is one of the foulest smelling of the type I MSDs. Has anyone
> > had direct experience with this device?
> >
> > Philip Hooge
>
> If not properly maintained, they certainly can stink--primarily from
> stagnant sea water used in flushing. However, using Raritan's
> contentrated deoderizing chemical along with flushing the sea water out
> with fresh water before closing up the boat usually solves the problem.
>
> Specializing in marine toilet systems since 1987
Have a friend that has a 43' Offshore Cat-ketch and his forward head is
plumbed so that it uses the fresh water -when available- from the sink
drain (or salt depending on which way the valve is turned) after the
sink drain through hull is closed. All head odors are gone. You just
have to remember to brush your teeth before using the head..... You use
your fresh water twice. And when your drinking a lot of beer you have
the cleanest teeth in town.
(grin)
Jack
--
jcha...@ns.net KD6UOT WAO9946
SV Hind Sight Doc# 691808 San Francisco, Ca.
"Here we go again.
Change lightbulb....rewire boat"
Peggie Hall
Ron Dwelle wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, the State of Michigan has a prohibition against
> grey-water discharge which--as far as I know--has never ever been
> enforced. It was made law before phosphates were removed from soap, and
> has been larglely ignored since then.
>
> In Canada (Ontario), grey water legislation is again being considered,
> after being rejected in the past few years. The current proposal calls
> for requiring all new boats to be fitted with grey-water tanks, but not
> retrofitting older boats. The Ontario Boating Federation is actively
> opposing it. (Maybe someone on the list can send an address of OBF--I
> can't locate my info). Canada has never required phosphates to be
> removed from detergents, as the US did.
My information has always been that the gray water laws on the Great
Lakes are only enforced against commercial vessels--freighters,
excursion-dinner cruise boats, etc. While captained charters are also
considered "commercial" vessels, it isn't even enforced against them
unless they're big enough to be of concern.
Peggie Hall/Peal Products
Specialzing in marine toilet systems since 1987
Peggie Hall
Ron Dwelle wrote:
>
> Terry Schell wrote:
> > I am familar with this law... I was suggesting a set of laws that were
> > somewhat more "sane". Something *far* less restrictive of the human
> > waste from boaters; laws were the degree of restriction was in some
> > way related to the degree of environmental threat. The current set of
> > laws allows huge deposits of toxins in our water, but forces boat
> > owners to pay thousands to prevent a little doody from getting in the
> > water. That money would be far better spent on preventing ag run-off
> > from reaching our streams and lakes.
> > Sincerely,
> > Terry "dreaming-of-rational-environmental-laws" Schell
> I agree with Terry, here. I think the best thing cruisers could do is
> start agitating for legal on-board treatment systems. The "zero"
> discharge idea may have been reasonable in 1968, but the technology for
> on-board treatment isn't that complex nowadays. And in many cruising
> areas, the on-shore treatment facilities where you pump your holding
> tank sewage are pathetic.
>
> Of course, no head maker is going to waste money on R&D if the product
> would be illegal.
You're absolutely right about that. However, in all interstate waterways--except in
areas that have gone through an extensive EPA approval process to have them declared "no
discharge zones" for specific reasons--Type I and II MSDS (treatment devices) ARE legal.
So-called "closed" intrastate waters are subject to that state's laws.
More than one state has made the mistake of passing a marine sanitation bill that goes
beyond what federal law will permit...those laws last until somebody figures out that
they won't stand up in court and sues to have 'em overturned. TN's law, passed in '91,
never got off the ground before a bunch of boaters on the TN River tied it up in court
for 5 years...I don't THINK FL's law will hold up in court. GA's law managed to survive
on the books from '87 to '91 before a boat-owning lawyer orverturned it.
So it's not a matter of new laws...it's matter of whether your state's own law is in
fact "legal."
Most owners of boats under 35' are CHOOSING holding tanks over Type I MSDs--because of
the difference in cost, and because an increasing number of harbors are requiring
holding...meaning they'd have to install a tank as well as a Type I. The only two
readily available makes of Type Is are the Lectra/San (List price $975)...and the
SeaLand SanX--which does included a holding tank--for a whopping $1500 (list) including
the discharge pump. When a boat owner can install a holding tank that makes his boat
legal everywhere for about $500, not many are gonna want to spend another $700-$1000
(discount prices) to have a choice of holding or going overboard
The REAL issue is the availability of efficient and reasonably-priced pumpout
facilities. Where there are, the initial resistance to holding tanks abates very
quickly...but where boat owners have to go 20 miles to pump out--and then pay $25 to do
it, they have a right to scream.
So beat up your marinas...you'll have a better chance of making workable changes than
you will by lobbying congress--who only listen to large contributors. (Funny thing
about that...they think all boat owners are rich, but haven't figured out that we don't
have any money for lobbying.
Peggie Hall/Peal Products
Specializing in marine toilet systems since 1987
Peggie Hall
Bill Driscoll wrote:
>
> In article <19970301230...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> libra...@aol.com says...
> > I do not know of any state right now which controls the discharge of gray
> > water from showers and sinks.
> Sonoma County, CA does. In fact most counties don't allow grey water to
> be seperatly discharges to a different spot that your septic sys. Make no
> sense!
> Pensacola, FL. USA
Interesting...I wasn't aware of any which affect boats...you just added to my data
base...thanks.
State health laws prohibit the discharge of anything...in fact, the "land" definition of
sewage is "everything that comes out of a house or building through a pipe." (Not the
legal terminology, but that's what it means...while the "marine" definition restricts
"sewage" to "human body waste." Since those are conflicting definitions, it leads to
some interesting legislation...and some real head-butting between state agencies.
In Arkansas, the state health department was given the responsibility for marine
sanitation...so the first thing those folks tried to do was write land-side sewage laws
into their marine sanitation laws--and found out it won't work...after reviewing federal
marine sanitation laws, they've backed off of gray water altogether.
I suspect that it MIGHT be possible to successfully challenge marine gray water
prohibition, at least on any interstate body of water. Would prob'ly be more expensive
than it's worth, though.
Mark Edward Balcom
Peggie Hall wrote:
>
> Philip N. Hooge wrote:
> >
> > Peggie Hall wrote:
> > >
> > > Mel Haylock wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In terms of the environment, the chlorine is more harmful than the
> > > > human waste. Human waste is biodegradeable -chlorine is toxic to
> > > > marine flora and fauna.
> > >
> > > Not nearly as toxic as you think. Hypochlorous acid (chlorine) in Type
> > > I MSDs--notably the Lectra/San--is an all natural product created by
> > > combining electrical current and salt water--the same as is created by
> > >
> > > Specializing in marine toilet systems sine 1987
> >
> > I was looking favorably at installing a Lectra/San and then was told
> > that it is one of the foulest smelling of the type I MSDs. Has anyone
> > had direct experience with this device?
> >
> > Philip Hooge
>
> If not properly maintained, they certainly can stink--primarily from
> stagnant sea water used in flushing. However, using Raritan's
> contentrated deoderizing chemical along with flushing the sea water out
> with fresh water before closing up the boat usually solves the problem.
>
> Specializing in marine toilet systems since 1987
I've had one installed for more than 10 years. It's a far cry better than
a holding tank.The only problem that I have ever had was the time a teen
ager tryed to flush a tampon. Even then we were able to flush enough
fresh water through the system to disasemble a "clean" system and did not
find the stinking mess that we expected.
Mark
S/V Kaiulani
Paul Kamen
col...@whidbey.com (Michael Colfer) writes:
>The most bizarre aspect of all this is as follows: Here in Puget
>Sound, if I am sailing, for example, in the Strait of Juan de
>Fuca, just of Port Angeles, it is illegal for me to dump my bucket
>over the side, emitting perhaps a pound or so of human waste.
>Twelve miles to the north, the entire city of Victoria, B. C. is
>pumping its raw sewage into the Strait....
And herein, perhaps, lies the real value of the often-ludicrous
no-discharge laws: they can help create a society that has little
tolerance for the *real* polluters. So, call it environmental tokenism if
you want (I often do), but if it helps to generate a political will to so
something about the real pollution problems, then I'm all for it.
(On the other hand, when the regs are totally brain-dead, it might tempt
some of us to write off the validity the regulatory process entirely.
Which is too bad, because it's the only pollution-regulating process we
have.)
--
fish...@netcom.com
http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html
-"Call me Fishmeal"-
Peggie Hall
jack chalais wrote:
>
> Peggie Hall wrote:
> >
> > Philip N. Hooge wrote:
> > >
> > > Peggie Hall wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mel Haylock wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In terms of the environment, the chlorine is more harmful than the
> > > > > human waste. Human waste is biodegradeable -chlorine is toxic to
> > > > > marine flora and fauna.
> > > >
> > > > Not nearly as toxic as you think. Hypochlorous acid (chlorine) in Type
> > > > I MSDs--notably the Lectra/San--is an all natural product created by
> > > > combining electrical current and salt water--the same as is created by
> > > >
> > > > Peggie Hall/Peal Products
> > > > Specializing in marine toilet systems sine 1987
> > >
> > > I was looking favorably at installing a Lectra/San and then was told
> > > that it is one of the foulest smelling of the type I MSDs. Has anyone
> > > had direct experience with this device?
> > >
> > > Philip Hooge
> >
> > If not properly maintained, they certainly can stink--primarily from
> > stagnant sea water used in flushing. However, using Raritan's
> > contentrated deoderizing chemical along with flushing the sea water out
> > with fresh water before closing up the boat usually solves the problem.
> >
> > Peggie Hall/Peal Products
> > Specializing in marine toilet systems since 1987
>
> plumbed so that it uses the fresh water -when available- from the sink
> drain (or salt depending on which way the valve is turned) after the
> sink drain through hull is closed. All head odors are gone. You just
> have to remember to brush your teeth before using the head..... You use
> your fresh water twice. And when your drinking a lot of beer you have
> the cleanest teeth in town.
> (grin)
>
> Jack
We recommend plumbing all heads that way if possible. When closing up
the boat to let it sit between weekends, close the seacock and pump the
head as dry as possible. Then pour a couple of quarts of fresh water
down the sink...a little vinegar with it (although some people think our
bowl cleaner does a better job), and then pump the head. Because the
seacock's closed, the head will pull the fresh water through it,
cleaning the sea water out of the intake line, the entire pump, and
rinsing out that impossible to clean channel under the rim of the bowl,
as well as cleaning out the discharge lines etc. It totally eliminates
stinky sea water odor, and is a LOT simpler and cheaper fix than the
inline devices being marketed for that purpose.
Peggie Hall
Even though it doesn't change a thing...venting a bit steam DOES make
y'all feel a LITTLE better, doesn't it? <g>
We're easy targets, my friends...we're highly visible, boats are
"luxuries"--which paints a bulls eye on our transoms...and there aren't
enough of us to create an effective lobby. Since it's created a rather
profitable business for me, as a boat owner too I have to view the whole
issue with same feelings as the man who watched his mother in law drive
off a cliff in his brand new Mercedes. <gg>
Colin Starratt
Peggie Hall (peg...@worldnet.att.net) writes:
> Mark Armstrong wrote:
>>
>> Peggie Hall wrote:
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > What IS legal everywhere is "direct discharge" from you into the
>> > water--whether from above it or while in it...the only law you can
>> > possibly break are those relating to indecent exposure.
>> >
>>
>> So technically, I could build a "outhouse" style head, maybe a
>> curtain around the pulpit and do a direct discharge and be legal?
>>
>> I love regulations :-)
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> m...@raster.kodak.com
>
>
> Nope.... The CFR defines a Marine Sanitation Device as: "Any equipment
> installed aboard a vessel designed to receive, retain, treat or
> discharge sewage, and any process to treat such sewage." (BTW, "sewage"
> is defined as "human body waste," period.)
>
> Since your outhouse would receive sewage--even though it's passing
> through--it qualifies as a marine sanitation device. OTOH, urinating
> into a scupper or cockpit drain is NOT illegal...because they aren't
> devices designed to receive or discharge sewage.
>
> Yep...regulations can certainly be entertaining! <g>
>
> Peggie Hall/Peal Products
> Specializing in marine toilet systems since 1987
>
Wait a minute, now! If the proposed "outhouse" had no bottom to it ... that
is nothing to "receive" the sewage, but merely a seat designed to support
the circumference of one's bum and walls to conceal you from view (neither of
which is illegal as far as I know) while the results drop straight into the
water, just like the marine heads in the old sailing ships ... that doesn't
sound illegal given that it is legal to crap into the water in the first
place.
I recall the plight of a young lady on a 60ft schooner: she was too
seasick to go below, but was desperate to relieve herself. We ended up
putting a harness on her and helping her to stand on the far side of the
stern rail, keeping a good hold on her while she pulled down her shorts
and did her business while everyone politely looked away :-}. Damn, that
was a fun March Break in Antigua! (I was in similar circumstances on the
same boat, but being male I could safely stand on the inside of the rail :-).)
Colin S.
Russell Turpin
-*--------
In article <33190E...@worldnet.att.net>,
Peggie Hall <peg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> If not properly maintained, they certainly can stink--primarily
> from stagnant sea water used in flushing. However, using Raritan's
> contentrated deoderizing chemical along with flushing the sea water
> out with fresh water before closing up the boat usually solves the
> problem.
How do they do the latter? It seems to me it would require a Y-valve
on the head *inlet* hose, supporting inlet from an alternate onboat
source ...
Regards,
Russell
--
I'd rather that a bigot mistake me for a lesbian than that a lesbian
mistake me for a bigot.
-- Tovah Hollander
greg harms
>enough of us to create an effective lobby. Since it's created a rather
>profitable business for me, as a boat owner too I have to view the whole
>issue with same feelings as the man who watched his mother in law drive
>off a cliff in his brand new Mercedes. <gg>
Yikes. Block that metaphor!
(BTW if this was me I'd be sorry about the mercedes and even sorrier about the
mother-in-law)
Peggie Hall
>
> Wait a minute, now! If the proposed "outhouse" had no bottom to it ... that
> is nothing to "receive" the sewage, but merely a seat designed to support
> the circumference of one's bum and walls to conceal you from view (neither of
> which is illegal as far as I know) while the results drop straight into the
> water, just like the marine heads in the old sailing ships ... that doesn't
> sound illegal given that it is legal to crap into the water in the first
> place.
>
> I recall the plight of a young lady on a 60ft schooner: she was too
> seasick to go below, but was desperate to relieve herself. We ended up
> putting a harness on her and helping her to stand on the far side of the
> stern rail, keeping a good hold on her while she pulled down her shorts
> and did her business while everyone politely looked away :-}. Damn, that
> was a fun March Break in Antigua! (I was in similar circumstances on the
> same boat, but being male I could safely stand on the inside of the rail :-).)
>
> Colin S.
It's the seat that gets you, Colin....I know it's stupid, but that makes
it a device installed to receive and discharge sewage under the legal
definition...anything specifically designed for the purpose of having
anything to do with elimination of body waste is gonna fall under that
definition A bosun's chair swung over the side has possibilities
though...<gg>
Charlie Mayne
Peggie Hall <peg...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Mel Haylock wrote:
>>
>> In terms of the environment, the chlorine is more harmful than the
>> human waste. Human waste is biodegradeable -chlorine is toxic to
>> marine flora and fauna.
>Not nearly as toxic as you think. Hypochlorous acid (chlorine) in Type
>I MSDs--notably the Lectra/San--is an all natural product created by
>combining electrical current and salt water--the same as is created by a
>lightning strike on the ocean, and much weaker concentration. It's
>highly unstable--in the sense that it doesn't like to be a compound--and
>immediately begins to return to its separate elements just as fast as
>possible. Formaldeyde OTOH, is indeed nasty stuff!
The holding tank chemical I have now has formaldehyde. I won't even keep
a small plastic bottle of the stuff on the boat because of the fumes. I
guess the holding tank vent keeps tank fumes out of the boat. I don't like
the idea of anything that nasty being around and getting pumped out into the
marina's sewage system.
Is there something else that works? How about using chlorine bleach?
Cheers,
Charlie
CS30 "Sprite"
--
Charlie Mayne | Motorola Incorporated
char...@pets.sps.mot.com | Microprocessor Products Group
| Austin, Texas 78735-8598
"I am concerned about my memory. But, for the life of me, I can't recall why."
Peggie Hall
Russell Turpin wrote:
>
> -*--------
> In article <33190E...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Peggie Hall <peg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > If not properly maintained, they certainly can stink--primarily
> > from stagnant sea water used in flushing. However, using Raritan's
> > contentrated deoderizing chemical along with flushing the sea water
> > out with fresh water before closing up the boat usually solves the
> > problem.
>
> How do they do the latter? It seems to me it would require a Y-valve
> on the head *inlet* hose, supporting inlet from an alternate onboat
> source ...
I'm glad you asked me that question...see my reply to Jack which
explains the easiest way to solve the problem.
Peggie Hall/Peal Products
Specialzing in marine toilet systems since 1987
Charlie Mayne
>> ... flushing the sea water out with fresh water ...
>How do they do the latter? It seems to me it would require a Y-valve
>on the head *inlet* hose, supporting inlet from an alternate onboat
>source ...
I was thinking about a Y-valve on the intake side of the manual head pump to
select either raw water or from my fresh water tank. Since I am on a lake
and don't spend extended time away from the marina, I have plenty of spare
capacity in my fresh water tank. My main concern with such a setup is the
pump leaking what is being pumped out into the intake and somehow contaminating
my fresh water tank.
Peggie Hall
Charlie Mayne wrote:
>
> Peggie Hall <peg...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >Mel Haylock wrote:
> >>
> >> In terms of the environment, the chlorine is more harmful than the
> >> human waste. Human waste is biodegradeable -chlorine is toxic to
> >> marine flora and fauna.
>
> >Not nearly as toxic as you think. Hypochlorous acid (chlorine) in Type
> >I MSDs--notably the Lectra/San--is an all natural product created by
> >combining electrical current and salt water--the same as is created by a
> >lightning strike on the ocean, and much weaker concentration. It's
> >highly unstable--in the sense that it doesn't like to be a compound--and
> >immediately begins to return to its separate elements just as fast as
> >possible. Formaldeyde OTOH, is indeed nasty stuff!
>
> The holding tank chemical I have now has formaldehyde. I won't even keep
> a small plastic bottle of the stuff on the boat because of the fumes. I
> guess the holding tank vent keeps tank fumes out of the boat. I don't like
> the idea of anything that nasty being around and getting pumped out into the
> marina's sewage system.
>
> Is there something else that works? How about using chlorine bleach?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Charlie
> CS30 "Sprite"
There are two ways to manage holding tank odor: stop it from forming, or try to contain
it, mask it, control it after it's formed.
"Bio-active" (live bacteria) stop odor from forming by digesting the product of
odor-causing bacteria...but also leave the good bacteria alive to break down and liquify
solids and paper. Sewage & septic systems love it...and because the little buggers
multiply, they continue to work when you aren't around.
Chemicals OTOH, mask odor, reduce the total bacteria count...and lose their potency as
new sewage is added to the tank, requiring retreatment. Because chemicals are
non-selective in the bacteria they kill, solids & paper can't break down...they only
break up into little tiny little particles which, along with the chemical residue
settles to the bottom of the tank to become the sludge you hate.
Two terms you need to understand: aerobic (needs oxygen in order to survive), and
anaerobic (just the opposite: thrives & survives in an airless environment.)
Both kinds of bacteria exist in sewage...but only the ANAEROBIC bacteria generate
malodorous gasses...the aerobic bacteria are the good guys, and don't produce odor.
Methane is odorless BTW.
So the key to eliminating holding tank odor is VENTILATION, instead of just
venting...providing a means for an exchange of air between the gasses in the tank and
the outside fresh air. It's the reason septic tanks stink and sewage treatment ponds
don't unless they become biologically "unbalanced by chemicals."
All this is explained in detail in our booklet "Marine Sanitation: Fact vs. Folklore."
It's available just for the asking...all I need is a snail mail address to send it to.
I haven't invented anything new...just applied landbased sewage management principles to
holding tanks and found that they WORK!
Peggie
Peggie Hall
Charlie Mayne wrote:
>
> >> ... flushing the sea water out with fresh water ...
>
> >How do they do the latter? It seems to me it would require a Y-valve
> >on the head *inlet* hose, supporting inlet from an alternate onboat
> >source ...
>
> I was thinking about a Y-valve on the intake side of the manual head pump to
> select either raw water or from my fresh water tank. Since I am on a lake
> and don't spend extended time away from the marina, I have plenty of spare
> capacity in my fresh water tank. My main concern with such a setup is the
> pump leaking what is being pumped out into the intake and somehow contaminating
> my fresh water tank.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Charlie
> CS30 "Sprite"
YOu just cited the reason why I wouldn't do it. The heads which are
designed to need pressurized water have all kinds of fail-safe
checkvalves in the system to prevent anything from going backward to the
water tank...these devices are integral to the head and would be
difficult & expensive to replicate in a head which isn't designed to use
'em. Read my previous reply to someone else on this issue...I think
you'll find a solution to the problem.
Peggie Hall/Peal Products
Specializing in marine toilet systems since 1987
Colin Starratt
Peggie Hall (PEG...@worldnet.att.net) writes:
>>
>> Wait a minute, now! If the proposed "outhouse" had no bottom to it ... that
>> is nothing to "receive" the sewage, but merely a seat designed to support
>> the circumference of one's bum and walls to conceal you from view (neither of
>> which is illegal as far as I know) while the results drop straight into the
>> water, just like the marine heads in the old sailing ships ... that doesn't
>> sound illegal given that it is legal to crap into the water in the first
>> place.
>> <anecdote snipped>
>> Colin S.
>
> It's the seat that gets you, Colin....I know it's stupid, but that makes
> it a device installed to receive and discharge sewage under the legal
> definition...anything specifically designed for the purpose of having
> anything to do with elimination of body waste is gonna fall under that
> definition A bosun's chair swung over the side has possibilities
> though...<gg>
>
> Peggie Hall/Peal Products
> Specializing in marine toilet systems since 1987
Ok, I won't ask about a single plank (like the "log toilets" we used in the
bush) instead of a toilet seat or hole, but how about a dinghy trapeze and a
towel wrapped about your waist?
Hook up to a spare halyard, step outside the lifelines, brace your feet on the
toe rail, drop your pants, squat, do your business, pull your pants back up
(be sure not to drop the toilet paper or the buggers will get you for
littering!), and swing back aboard. (Make sure the towel gets washed
really well!)
Fun and good exercise, too! ;-)
Colin S.
Bob Fifer
In article <5g2kl9$5...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
de...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin Starratt) wrote:
>
> Ok, I won't ask about a single plank (like the "log toilets" we used in the
> bush) instead of a toilet seat or hole, but how about a dinghy trapeze and a
> towel wrapped about your waist?
>
> Hook up to a spare halyard, step outside the lifelines, brace your feet on the
> toe rail, drop your pants, squat, do your business, pull your pants back up
> (be sure not to drop the toilet paper or the buggers will get you for
> littering!), and swing back aboard. (Make sure the towel gets washed
> really well!)
>
> Fun and good exercise, too! ;-)
>
> Colin S.
Just make sure that you're not the mid boat in a three boat raft-up, eh!
But, then again.......
Peggie Hall
Colin Starratt wrote:
>
> Peggie Hall (PEG...@worldnet.att.net) writes:
> >>
> >> Wait a minute, now! If the proposed "outhouse" had no bottom to it ... that
> >> is nothing to "receive" the sewage, but merely a seat designed to support
> >> the circumference of one's bum and walls to conceal you from view (neither of
> >> which is illegal as far as I know) while the results drop straight into the
> >> water, just like the marine heads in the old sailing ships ... that doesn't
> >> sound illegal given that it is legal to crap into the water in the first
> >> place.
> >> <anecdote snipped>
> >> Colin S.
> >
> > It's the seat that gets you, Colin....I know it's stupid, but that makes
> > it a device installed to receive and discharge sewage under the legal
> > definition...anything specifically designed for the purpose of having
> > anything to do with elimination of body waste is gonna fall under that
> > definition A bosun's chair swung over the side has possibilities
> > though...<gg>
> >
> > Peggie Hall/Peal Products
> > Specializing in marine toilet systems since 1987
>
> bush) instead of a toilet seat or hole, but how about a dinghy trapeze and a
> towel wrapped about your waist?
>
> Hook up to a spare halyard, step outside the lifelines, brace your feet on the
> toe rail, drop your pants, squat, do your business, pull your pants back up
> (be sure not to drop the toilet paper or the buggers will get you for
> littering!), and swing back aboard. (Make sure the towel gets washed
> really well!)
>
> Fun and good exercise, too! ;-)
>
> Colin S.
<LOL> You could probably pay for that contraption by selling tickets
to watch...Just be sure you're on the lee side of the boat! <gg>
Now I'm trying to visualize how to set this up on my flybridge
stinkpot...
Roger M. Derby
Peggie Hall wrote:
>
> Colin Starratt wrote:
> >
> > Peggie Hall (PEG...@worldnet.att.net) writes:
> > >>
> > >> Wait a minute, now! If the proposed "outhouse" had no bottom to it ...
> > >
> >
>
It sounds like you'all are reinventing the "rails of the head" which
were positioned for this bodily function (foot rail, seat, and back
rest). See any accurate model of a sailing ship thru 1850 and admire
the structure near the figurehead.
Roger
--
http://www.flash.net/~derbyrm mailto:der...@flash.net
Peggie Hall
And the reason a marine toilet is known as a "head."
Pelorus
Peg--
A question on vented loops.
My 26-year old Rawson 30 sailboat had an illegal head (Raritan PH),
mounted below the waterline, no loops on intake or discharge. The lines
were short, about a foot each. No problems.
I'm installing a 6-gal holding tank in the head compartment (no room
elsewhere). Head discharge does directly to tank. Tank outlet led to
y-valve, then up to deck pump-out. Other branch goes to a Gusher 500 and
DIRECTLY to discharge valve for emptying tank offshore.
1. Seacock will only be opened to pump out tank (i.e., rarely)
2. Gusher manufacturer says pump should withstand backpressure.
3. Y-valve will be locked in pump-out position, except for at-sea
dumping.
Question: are vented loops really necessary?
BTW: Raritan says joker valve in head discharge also should keep waste
from entering head when tank nears full and boat is heeled.
Regards,
Emil Gallina
s/v Independence
1970 Rawson 30 #161
Mayo, MD
Peggie Hall
Yes...a vented loop must be installed if your head is below the
waterline..the standards require it and your boat couldn't pass an
insurance survey without one.
While the joker valve does prevent backflow, it's FAR from infallable.
Remember, a joker valve is stretched every time the toilet is flushed.
Over time, it loses its ability to close again completely...and even a
small leak over several hours can fill up and overflow your bowl.
People forget that--unlike a household toilet--a marine toilet is a
working piece of machinery...which needs maintenance. The only way to
keep one working properly is to replace all the seals, gaskets and
valves at least every two years. But I'm betting that--unless your
toilet has given you problems and you've been FORCED to repair it--you
can't tell me when the joker valve was replaced last.
That's why a vented loop is required in the installation.
Rick Itenson
On 14 Mar 1997 05:01:13 GMT, pel...@aol.com (Pelorus) wrote:
>Peg--
>A question on vented loops.
>My 26-year old Rawson 30 sailboat had an illegal head (Raritan PH),
>mounted below the waterline, no loops on intake or discharge. The lines
>were short, about a foot each. No problems.
>Question: are vented loops really necessary?
>
Interesting question. Just came back from a charter. Every time I
went to the head I marvelled at how simple and accessible everything
was. Both heads had short intake and discharge lines going straight
from the bowl to the hull. The ball-valves were about a foot on either
side of the bowl. Every time I looked at it I said to myself how easy
the maintenance would be compared with my boat where the lines snake
back and up the hull and are totally inaccessible without major
construction or , to be correct, major demolition. Now it suddenly
strikes me on reading this post - no loops - vented or otherwise on
any of the lines. The forward head took in a bit of water underway so
we always shut the thru-hulls but the aft head was fine. The boat was
a Beneteau 43 built in France for the charter trade.
-------------------------------------------
Rick Itenson, "La Belle Aurore" CS36 Merlin
Toronto
Pelorus
Peg-- Awaiting your posting to appear. (BTW: zip is 21037 Edgewater,
MD).
More thoughts on loops:
1. Putting a loop in line from head to tank will require so much flushing
with each use that tank will fill in no time.
2. Putting a loop in line from tank pump to thru-hull also will require a
lot of pumping and a lot of waste will remain in the ascending loop line
as well as the pump, etc. I suppose one could pump more sea water thru
the toilet into the tank during legal discharge as a way of flushing the
system. That would result in rotting sea water sitting in the loop line
for long periods.
I still don't know why, if loops are so vital, this 26-yr-old boat, with
its original head, never sank.
What I'm installing already takes up a lot of room in a small boat.
Getting another 6-8ft of not very flexible 1-1/2" hose, etc in there (just
for the line to the thru hull, let alone an intake loop and a loop to the
tank), will not only eliminate valuable storage, it will make the head
look like the reactor at Chernobyl.
Emil
Howard
On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 10:25:46 -0500, Peggie Hall <peg...@worldnet.net> wrote:
>Pelorus wrote:
>>
>> Peg--
>> A question on vented loops.
>> My 26-year old Rawson 30 sailboat had an illegal head (Raritan PH),
>> mounted below the waterline, no loops on intake or discharge. The lines
>> were short, about a foot each. No problems.
>>
>> I'm installing a 6-gal holding tank in the head compartment (no room
>> elsewhere). Head discharge does directly to tank. Tank outlet led to
>> y-valve, then up to deck pump-out. Other branch goes to a Gusher 500 and
>> DIRECTLY to discharge valve for emptying tank offshore.
>>
>> 1. Seacock will only be opened to pump out tank (i.e., rarely)
>> 2. Gusher manufacturer says pump should withstand backpressure.
>> 3. Y-valve will be locked in pump-out position, except for at-sea
>> dumping.
>>
>> Question: are vented loops really necessary?
>>
>> BTW: Raritan says joker valve in head discharge also should keep waste
>> from entering head when tank nears full and boat is heeled.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Emil Gallina
>> s/v Independence
>> 1970 Rawson 30 #161
>> Mayo, MD
>
>Yes...a vented loop must be installed if your head is below the
>waterline..the standards require it and your boat couldn't pass an
>insurance survey without one.
>
>While the joker valve does prevent backflow, it's FAR from infallable.
>Remember, a joker valve is stretched every time the toilet is flushed.
>Over time, it loses its ability to close again completely...and even a
>small leak over several hours can fill up and overflow your bowl.
>
>People forget that--unlike a household toilet--a marine toilet is a
>working piece of machinery...which needs maintenance. The only way to
>keep one working properly is to replace all the seals, gaskets and
>valves at least every two years. But I'm betting that--unless your
>toilet has given you problems and you've been FORCED to repair it--you
>can't tell me when the joker valve was replaced last.
>
>That's why a vented loop is required in the installation.
>
>Peggie Hall/Peal Products
>Specializing in marine toilet systems since 1987
An important footnote to Catalina owners. Until a couple years ago (maybe 4?)
most Catalina heads did not have the vented loop, and could take on water if the
valve on the head was accidentally left open. That's the reason some Catalinas
were shipping with warning labels underneath the toilet seat cover. I
personally know about the 30 & 36. It wouldn't hurt to check your boat for a
vented loop. Catalina has been using vented loops for the shower sumps, and
could be mistaken as vented loops for the head...
Although I agree with the suggestion of preventive maintenance every couple
years, I know of very few skippers who do it. It is usually done during a
cruise when it breaks.......yuck..... :))
Allen Ames
Peggie Hall wrote:
> Yes...a vented loop must be installed if your head is below the
> waterline..the standards require it and your boat couldn't pass an
> insurance survey without one.
Peggie, I don't understand this. The question concerned the
installation of a head plumbed to a holding tank and with NO DIRECT
OVERBOARD DISCHARGE. Why would it need a vented loop?
Peggie Hall
Howard wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 10:25:46 -0500, Peggie Hall <peg...@worldnet.net> wrote:
>
> >Pelorus wrote:
> >>
> >> Peg--
> >> A question on vented loops.
> >> My 26-year old Rawson 30 sailboat had an illegal head (Raritan PH),
> >> mounted below the waterline, no loops on intake or discharge. The lines
> >> were short, about a foot each. No problems.
> >>
> >> I'm installing a 6-gal holding tank in the head compartment (no room
> >> elsewhere). Head discharge does directly to tank. Tank outlet led to
> >> y-valve, then up to deck pump-out. Other branch goes to a Gusher 500 and
> >> DIRECTLY to discharge valve for emptying tank offshore.
> >>
> >> 1. Seacock will only be opened to pump out tank (i.e., rarely)
> >> 2. Gusher manufacturer says pump should withstand backpressure.
> >> 3. Y-valve will be locked in pump-out position, except for at-sea
> >> dumping.
> >>
> >> Question: are vented loops really necessary?
> >>
> >> BTW: Raritan says joker valve in head discharge also should keep waste
> >> from entering head when tank nears full and boat is heeled.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Emil Gallina
> >> s/v Independence
> >> 1970 Rawson 30 #161
> >> Mayo, MD
> >
> >waterline..the standards require it and your boat couldn't pass an
> >insurance survey without one.
> >
> >Remember, a joker valve is stretched every time the toilet is flushed.
> >Over time, it loses its ability to close again completely...and even a
> >small leak over several hours can fill up and overflow your bowl.
> >
> >People forget that--unlike a household toilet--a marine toilet is a
> >working piece of machinery...which needs maintenance. The only way to
> >keep one working properly is to replace all the seals, gaskets and
> >valves at least every two years. But I'm betting that--unless your
> >toilet has given you problems and you've been FORCED to repair it--you
> >can't tell me when the joker valve was replaced last.
> >
> >That's why a vented loop is required in the installation.
> >
> >Peggie Hall/Peal Products
> >Specializing in marine toilet systems since 1987
>
> An important footnote to Catalina owners. Until a couple years ago (maybe 4?)
> most Catalina heads did not have the vented loop, and could take on water if the
> valve on the head was accidentally left open. That's the reason some Catalinas
> were shipping with warning labels underneath the toilet seat cover. I
> personally know about the 30 & 36. It wouldn't hurt to check your boat for a
> vented loop. Catalina has been using vented loops for the shower sumps, and
> could be mistaken as vented loops for the head...
> Although I agree with the suggestion of preventive maintenance every couple
> years, I know of very few skippers who do it. It is usually done during a
> cruise when it breaks.......yuck..... :))
Very good advice, Howard. Thanks!
Peggie Hall
It shouldn't...the discharge should
A vented loop will NOT mean you'll use more water...it only serves as a
siphon break, it doesn't interfere with the flushing of the toilet.
Don't put it on the toilet intake, only in the discharge line...come
out of the head going up and over the loop mounted right above the
toilet...and then on to wherever...shouldn't require more than a couple
feet of hose.
As for using more water: The "default" setting for your manual head
should ALWAYS be "dry bowl." After just urination, pump the bowl
contents all the way through to the holding tank (yes, it WILL go!),
then turn the knob or lever to "flush" and pump only enought to rinse
the bowl, flip the lever back and pump that through to the tank...which
also rinses out the discharge line. Since no manual marine head is
designed to hold water, before depositing solids and paper, put a cupful
or 2..or 3...of water from the sink in the head first...then follow the
same procedure: pump it all the way to the tank, bring in only enough
water to rinse the bowl, then back to "dry" bowl again.
To determine how many pump strokes it takes to move waste from the
toilet to the tank, have someone watch the tank while you pump water
through it half a dozen times...count the pump strokes--they'll vary
slightly--to find out what the maximum number is...that's how many times
you'll need to pump the head AFTER you've pumped it only 2 or 3 times to
bring in the "rinse."
You'll be amazed at how much larger your holding gets when you do it
this way.
BTW...if you'd like for me to look at what you're about to install,
give me a holler...'cuz some of your comments lead me to think you may
be overcomplicating it a bit.
Peggie Hall/Peal Products
Specializing in marine toilet systems since 1987.
Peggie Hall
Rick Itenson wrote:
>
> On 14 Mar 1997 05:01:13 GMT, pel...@aol.com (Pelorus) wrote:
>
> >Peg--
> >A question on vented loops.
> >My 26-year old Rawson 30 sailboat had an illegal head (Raritan PH),
> >mounted below the waterline, no loops on intake or discharge. The lines
> >were short, about a foot each. No problems.
>
> >
> went to the head I marvelled at how simple and accessible everything
> was. Both heads had short intake and discharge lines going straight
> from the bowl to the hull. The ball-valves were about a foot on either
> side of the bowl. Every time I looked at it I said to myself how easy
> the maintenance would be compared with my boat where the lines snake
> back and up the hull and are totally inaccessible without major
> construction or , to be correct, major demolition. Now it suddenly
> strikes me on reading this post - no loops - vented or otherwise on
> any of the lines. The forward head took in a bit of water underway so
> we always shut the thru-hulls but the aft head was fine. The boat was
> a Beneteau 43 built in France for the charter trade.
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Rick Itenson, "La Belle Aurore" CS36 Merlin
> Toronto
You just made my point: the forward head took on water if the seacock
was open while you were underway. YOU remembered to close 'em...but
what about the folks who don't?
BTW...I'm assuming you mean that water came back up the
discharge--also making my point about joker valves failing...a vented
loop is NOT required in the intake line.
However, ABYC standards DO require one in the discharge line, even if it
only goes to a holding tank and not overboard.
Peggie Hall
Allen Ames wrote:
>
> Peggie Hall wrote:
> > Yes...a vented loop must be installed if your head is below the
> > waterline..the standards require it and your boat couldn't pass an
> > insurance survey without one.
>
> installation of a head plumbed to a holding tank and with NO DIRECT
> OVERBOARD DISCHARGE. Why would it need a vented loop?
Even if the holding tank isn't full, sewage can run back to the head
when boat's heeled or in rough seas. No, it won't sink the boat...but if
the joker valve allows sewage to enter and overflow the bowl, sinking
might be a better alternative. <g>
The idea of a vented loop is not only to keep sea water from entering
the boat through the head, but also to keep sewage from doing so...there
are a myriad of circumstances in which it can do so, especially in rough
seas.
svwi...@aol.com
>a marine toilet is a
>working piece of machinery...which needs maintenance. The only way to
>keep one working properly is to replace all the seals, gaskets and
>valves at least every two years
Pgggie, Peggie -- we really and truly respect your opinions and you are one of the few contributers here with knowledge of which you speak. But you might want to mention that your advice re seals, etc does not apply to those of us fortunate enough to have chosen the LaVac!
Happy Trails
S/V Windigo
Peggie Hall
Bob Edwards wrote:
>
> Peggie Hall wrote:
> >
> > svwi...@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <33296D...@worldnet.net>, Peggie Hall <peg...@worldnet.net> writes:
> > >
> > > >a marine toilet is a
> > > >working piece of machinery...which needs maintenance. The only way to
> > > >keep one working properly is to replace all the seals, gaskets and
> > > >valves at least every two years
> > >
> > > Pgggie, Peggie -- we really and truly respect your opinions and you are one of the few contributers here with knowledge of which you
speak.
> > But you might want
> > >
> > > S/V Windigo
> >
> > Something went awry with your word wrap...I lost the end of that
> > sentence...but I did get far enough to read Levac. Even it needs a
> > little preventive maintenance once in a while.
> >
> > What sandbags Levac owners into believing otherwise is that most of them
> > are passagemaking cruisers...IOW liveaboards. Marine heads suffer more
> > from disuse than constant use...when the boat is laid up for
> > winter, and sits between weekends during the season--something that
> > doesn't happen for most Levac owners--seals, gaskets, etc dry
> > out...become brittle and are likely to fail...whereas when the head's in
> > constant use they stay moist and supple. Weekend boaters have far more
> > problems with heads--with d'd near everything on a boat!--than
> > liveaboards and people who use their boats almost daily...even Levac
> > owners.
> >
> > Peggie Hall/Peal Products
> > Specializing in boat toilet systems since 1987
>
> OTOH, there are far fewer parts in the Lavac to fail in the first place!
>
> Maybe it's worth wondering WHY the cruisers and hard core liveaboards
> use Lavac...
The Levac is really no different in principle from the SeaLand
VacuFlush...a vacuum action head. However, There IS NO one "best" head.
Every boat is different...every boat owner has different needs. While
the Levac may be the right head for a 35' passagemaking sailboat with an
adult couple aboard, it may not be the right head for a 25' Hunter on a
lake that's used by a family with small children every third weekend 4
months of the year. It would definitely NOT be the right head for my own
32' stinkpot...which I can use year round--if being in the marine biz
didn't keep me off my own boat for weeks at a time.
We ask a lot of questions before recommending a head...what we
recommend depends as much on the owner & how he uses the boat as it
does on the boat itself.
BTW...might be worth mentioning again--especially now that spring has
sprung--that we offer a booklet called "Marine Sanitation: Fact vs.
Folklore"...it's not sales literature, but my seminars edited into
booklet form. It defines and explains current federal laws, equipment
and how it works, standards for system installation, and odor--it's real
cause and how to install or modify a system that will NOT stink. It's
free for the asking to anyone who'd like to e-mail a snail mail address
to send it to.
Peggie Hall/Peal Products
Specializing in boat toilets systems since 1987
Peggie Hall
Bob Edwards
OTOH, there are far fewer parts in the Lavac to fail in the first place!
Maybe it's worth wondering WHY the cruisers and hard core liveaboards
use Lavac...I lived aboard my previous boat, too, and had one problem
after another with the Raritan PH head. The other nice thing about the
Lavac is, if it does fail, everything is right out there in the open
where you can get to it. If you're lucky, a jam (the most common
problem with any head) can be cleared just by untwisting the pump cover
on the Henderson pump (ok, it isn't any less gross to do than other
heads, but it's a lot faster!)
wsp
Pelorus wrote:
>
> Peg--
> A question on vented loops.
> My 26-year old Rawson 30 sailboat had an illegal head (Raritan PH),
> mounted below the waterline, no loops on intake or discharge. The lines
> were short, about a foot each. No problems.
>
> elsewhere). Head discharge does directly to tank. Tank outlet led to
> y-valve, then up to deck pump-out. Other branch goes to a Gusher 500 and
> DIRECTLY to discharge valve for emptying tank offshore.
>
> 1. Seacock will only be opened to pump out tank (i.e., rarely)
> 2. Gusher manufacturer says pump should withstand backpressure.
> 3. Y-valve will be locked in pump-out position, except for at-sea
> dumping.
>
>
In your case only when you are going directly into the water, with only
the joker valve between the bowl and the thru hull.
I solved it this way:
I hate those vented loops. must have bad luck but the two I have had
have spurted vile stuff into the boat.
So, I put a small threaded pipe into the top and put a cap on it. Now
when we have the head in use (valves open and we are on the boat (and,
peeing only) into the salt water) I close the cap. Before we sleep or
leave the boat I loosen the cap, let air in and lose the siphon
danger(then tighten it again).
Russell Turpin
-*-------
In article <332E48...@olympus.net>, wsp <w...@olympus.net> wrote:
> So, I put a small threaded pipe into the top and put a cap on it. Now
> when we have the head in use (valves open and we are on the boat (and,
> peeing only) into the salt water) I close the cap. Before we sleep or
> leave the boat I loosen the cap, let air in and lose the siphon
> danger(then tighten it again).
How is this better than (a) having a straight connection
without joker valve, and (b) closing the seacock when
it is not in use?
Russell
--
I'd rather that a bigot mistake me for a lesbian than that a lesbian
mistake me for a bigot.
-- Tovah Hollander
Peggie Hall
wsp wrote:
>
> Pelorus wrote:
> >
> > Peg--
> > A question on vented loops.
> > My 26-year old Rawson 30 sailboat had an illegal head (Raritan PH),
> > mounted below the waterline, no loops on intake or discharge. The lines
> > were short, about a foot each. No problems.
> >
> > I'm installing a 6-gal holding tank in the head compartment (no room
> > elsewhere). Head discharge does directly to tank. Tank outlet led to
> > y-valve, then up to deck pump-out. Other branch goes to a Gusher 500 and
> > DIRECTLY to discharge valve for emptying tank offshore.
> >
> > 1. Seacock will only be opened to pump out tank (i.e., rarely)
> > 2. Gusher manufacturer says pump should withstand backpressure.
> > 3. Y-valve will be locked in pump-out position, except for at-sea
> > dumping.
> >
> > Question: are vented loops really necessary?
> >
>
> In your case only when you are going directly into the water, with only
> the joker valve between the bowl and the thru hull.
>
> I solved it this way:
>
> I hate those vented loops. must have bad luck but the two I have had
> have spurted vile stuff into the boat.
>
> when we have the head in use (valves open and we are on the boat (and,
> peeing only) into the salt water) I close the cap. Before we sleep or
> leave the boat I loosen the cap, let air in and lose the siphon
> danger(then tighten it again).
If you have trouble with a vented loop spouting, it means that it's
either missing the check valve, or the check valve has failed and needs
to be replaced...'cuz vented loops are only supposed to let air IN, not
out. Putting a cap on it defeats it...'cuz without a means of letting
air in, an over-full tank will spill sewage right on up and over it,
back into the head.
Vented loops ARE necessary, even if the discharge only goes into a
holding tank. Yes...they prevent seawater from sinking the
boat...but they prevent sewage in the tank from coming back to the bowl
and potentially entering the boat--a mess you don't want! It can happen
even when the tank isn't full--in rough seas or at some angles of heel.
Peggie Hall/Peal Products
Thomas Gregg
How about attaching a small diameter hose to the small threaded pipe and
venting it overboard. Use something like a fuel tank vent.
That way it's open all the time and any accidents go overboard.
douglas dedon
Peggie Tried to email you email was returned user unknown would like to
have the booklet.
Douglas Dedon
13865 Glen Ellis RD.
Walker LA 70785
S/V Singleup H/P Walker LA.
wsp
Russell Turpin wrote:
>
> -*-------
> In article <332E48...@olympus.net>, wsp <w...@olympus.net> wrote:
> > when we have the head in use (valves open and we are on the boat (and,
> > peeing only) into the salt water) I close the cap. Before we sleep or
> > leave the boat I loosen the cap, let air in and lose the siphon
> > danger(then tighten it again).
>
> without joker valve, and (b) closing the seacock when
> it is not in use?
>
a) You need the joker valve don't you? I think otherwise you wouldn't
be able to move the water out of the bowl. The joker valve is a one way
rubber valve (like a heart valve) which the pump backs the effluent
against so the effluent can fill up the pump chamber and be eliminated
with the next stroke.
b) Nothing is better than closing the seacock when not in use; that's
the next best thing to eliminating a hole in the hull. Though I get
what you mean. IMHO, too much messing with the seacocks will lead to
more maint or the possibility of you or someone else breaking/loosening
it (whatever). Best to treat those babies with great care: the captian
should be the only one who messes with them in my opinion.
I just imagine the effect of one breaking off (not that its likely) and
I tend to get lots more respect for valves which are thru hulls.
wsp
Peggie Hall wrote:
>
> wsp wrote:
> >
> > Pelorus wrote:
> > >
> > > Peg--
> > > A question on vented loops.
> > > My 26-year old Rawson 30 sailboat had an illegal head (Raritan PH),
> > > mounted below the waterline, no loops on intake or discharge. The lines
> > > were short, about a foot each. No problems.
> > >
> > > I'm installing a 6-gal holding tank in the head compartment (no room
> > > elsewhere). Head discharge does directly to tank. Tank outlet led to
> > > y-valve, then up to deck pump-out. Other branch goes to a Gusher 500 and
> > > DIRECTLY to discharge valve for emptying tank offshore.
> > >
> > > 1. Seacock will only be opened to pump out tank (i.e., rarely)
> > > 2. Gusher manufacturer says pump should withstand backpressure.
> > > 3. Y-valve will be locked in pump-out position, except for at-sea
> > > dumping.
> > >
> > > Question: are vented loops really necessary?
> > >
> >
> > In your case only when you are going directly into the water, with only
> > the joker valve between the bowl and the thru hull.
> >
> > I solved it this way:
> >
> > I hate those vented loops. must have bad luck but the two I have had
> > have spurted vile stuff into the boat.
> >
> > when we have the head in use (valves open and we are on the boat (and,
> > peeing only) into the salt water) I close the cap. Before we sleep or
> > leave the boat I loosen the cap, let air in and lose the siphon
> > danger(then tighten it again).
>
> either missing the check valve, or the check valve has failed and needs
> to be replaced...'cuz vented loops are only supposed to let air IN, not
> out.
The ones I had (both defective? seriously a possibility) both spurted a
little before the pumping began in earnest. This was very disgusting to
me. So I eliminate the siphon manually. Usually when no on is on the
boat. It's worked so far. I figure the bilge pumps and independent
alarms will warn us if we are on the boat.
> Putting a cap on it defeats it...'cuz without a means of letting
> air in, an over-full tank will spill sewage right on up and over it,
> back into the head.
My modified loop, which I manually eliminate the siphon by means of
loosening the cap I put on it to let air in, is on the thru hull side of
the head.
I don't have the vented loop on the tank side. I figure the 1 1/2
diameter hose, looped high, is such that it will empty itself, no real
fear of sewage siphoning anyway.
>
> Vented loops ARE necessary, even if the discharge only goes into a
> holding tank. Yes...they prevent seawater from sinking the
> boat...but they prevent sewage in the tank from coming back to the bowl
> and potentially entering the boat--a mess you don't want! It can happen
> even when the tank isn't full--in rough seas or at some angles of heel.
Good observation, I'll have to think about that.
Peggie Hall
> How about attaching a small diameter hose to the small threaded pipe and
> venting it overboard. Use something like a fuel tank vent.
>
> That way it's open all the time and any accidents go overboard.
The main point is: vented loops are only supposed to let air IN...they
aren't supposed to spout. If they do, they aren't working properly.
Venting the vented loop to the outside is only allowing a
malfunctioning vented loop to continue to work. Fix it! Most vented
loops have a replaceable check valve that threads into the top of the
loop...cheap ones have an integral check valve...both have a
life-span--but replacing the check-valve is a lot easier and cheaper
than replacing the entire loop.
Inspect the loop...if there's nothing at the top but a hole with threads
in it, you're missing something. Replace it and there won't BE any
"accidents."
Peggie Hall
douglas dedon wrote:
>
> Peggie Tried to email you email was returned user unknown would like to
> have the booklet.
Maybe I ought to pay the bill! <g> Got it...will go out in tomorrow's
mail.
RW Salnick
Peggy -
The worldnet.net address is returning mail to you as undeliverable...
Could you please send me the brochure at:
RW Salnick
E11907 Midway Lane
Mead, WA 99021
Thanks! And thanks for all the time you spend here discussing the issues
associated with the least-appreciated system on boats. The knowledge you
have made available to us all is priceless.
bob
(sorry for the group bandwidth wasted in what is essentially a private
communication...)
--
----------------------------------------------------
RW Salnick | Home: sal...@dejavu.spk.wa.us
WA9BVE | Work: sal...@teach.kaiser.spk.wa.us
Peggie Hall
RW Salnick wrote:
>
> Peggy -
>
> The worldnet.net address is returning mail to you as undeliverable...
>
> associated with the least-appreciated system on boats. The knowledge you
> have made available to us all is priceless.
Thanks for the kind words! And apologies for the bad e-mail
address...it appears I left out part of it when I reloaded all my
software after a harddrive crash--which probably explains why I haven't
been getting any e-mail.
The correct address is: peg...@worldnet.att.net.
Feel free to use it if you have questions after you'ver read the
booklet.
Peggie Hall/PealProducts
jere...@castle.net
RW Salnick wrote:
>
> Peggy -
>
> ... And thanks for all the time you spend here discussing the issues
> associated with the least-appreciated system on boats. The knowledge you
> have made available to us all is priceless.
Least-appreciated? Those of us who have suffered through a leaky, smelly
or non-functional head (particularly when there's only one onboard)
*DEFINITELY* appreciate a properly-functioning head.
--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux
'73 Tanzer 28 #4
out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's Pics & Specs: http://www.castle.net/~jerelull/X-Main.html
British Virgin Islands: http://www.castle.net/~jerelull/BVI.html
Peggie Hall
jere...@castle.net wrote:
>
> RW Salnick wrote:
> >
> > Peggy -
> (snip)
> >
> > ... And thanks for all the time you spend here discussing the issues
> > associated with the least-appreciated system on boats. The knowledge you
> > have made available to us all is priceless.
>
> Least-appreciated? Those of us who have suffered through a leaky, smelly
> or non-functional head (particularly when there's only one onboard)
> *DEFINITELY* appreciate a properly-functioning head.
>
> --
> Jere Lull
> Xan-a-Deux
Kind words are always appreciated! I enjoy being here, or I wouldn't do
it. I don't like a sanitation system which calls ANY attention to
itself any more that you do.
BTW...if the boat stinks, and you can't find the source in your
sanitation system, look to your bilge and/or sumps. The molds, fungi,
algae and decayed marine micro-organisms that love damp dark places can
stink worse than sewage.
My thought for the day...<g>
Peggie Hall/Peal Products