Composting head vs classic head

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Hmmm....

1. Who do you believe you are "correcting"?

2. What "incorrect" things?

3. Who "suggested" what you are claiming?

But now that you bring it up:

1. How frequently do you have to empty the container of undiluted, partially encrusted, acidic, collection of urine from all those aboard?

(I would expect, about every 6 days for an individual, 3 days per couple, or at least once per day with 6 or more users.)

2. How do you get it from the head area to the disposal area?

(Unless you pour it down the head sink drain (ewwwww) I suspect you have to carry it through the boat.)

3. How frequently do you have to empty the "feces / fibre" container.

(I would expect, about every 28 days for an individual, 14 days per couple, or at least every 5 days with 6 or more users.)

4. How do you get the bacteria and virus ridden feces / fibre mixture from the toilet to the disposal area (overboard or into a bag to be dealt with by others) without carrying it through the vessel from the head to the cockpit?

(I suspect you do not launch it up through a cabin top hatch.)

5. If dumped into a trash bag and dropped ashore in a refuse bin, especially when visiting remote and under-developed areas, do you always verify that the local waste disposal process is handled appropriately by individuals trained in handling human waste, and dealt with in an eco-friendly manner.

(I suspect like most others, once it is off your boat, you simply don't concern yourself with it.)

I have thoroughly considered the option of an "Effluent Separating Toilet"; after investigating the "true" facts, evaluating the "real" pros and cons, and applying my "knowledge and experience" with various waste handling and treatment solutions (locally and where ever I may go), I decided not to install one of these on my boat.

Is there anything stated in this post that is incorrect?

If so, please advise?

placing the partially composted solids into a " dumpster " inside of a compostable bag. Is much better environmentally than a used disposable baby diaper.
Also much more ecologically friendly than the raw sewage that is pumped from "your vessel " ( no person in specific)
then transported to a ( hopefully ) proper sewage treatment facility where it is injected with chemicals that are then freely released into the environment.
For example Ontario Canada has 4 " treatment" plants . They are reported as level 1 facilities which means strain it and remove obvious solids and send the rest into the lake. Most of Canada believes in the dilution solution.

https://globalnews.ca/news/545254/canadas-method-of-water-treatment-a-national-embarrassment/
I would rather send my partially composted solids to a land fill where it can complete the composting and become inert.
As opposed to back into my drinking water supply.
As to the urine well unless a person has a uti it is basically sterile and full of ammonia ( which by the way is an antibacterial) .

As to carrying the solids through the vessel well it is contained inside of a hard plastic container . So with the lid solidly in place there is no spillage possible. Same with the urine containment vessel.

[mvweebles]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

1. Who do you believe you are "correcting"?

2. What "incorrect" things?

Rod - aren't you the guy who has repeatedly stated Compost Heads are not Type III MSDs, despite a clearly stated USCG citation to the contrary?

Again, here is the link:

USCG See 33 CFR 159.12(a) and 33 CFR 159.53(c)

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by mvweebles

Rod - aren't you the guy who has repeatedly stated Compost Heads are not Type III MSDs, despite a clearly stated USCG citation to the contrary?

Again, here is the link:

USCG See 33 CFR 159.12(a) and 33 CFR 159.53(c)

just to add on to this here is a snapshot of the letter from the commandant of the USCG to
Harmony design

[mvweebles]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

I have thoroughly considered the option of an "Effluent Separating Toilet"; after investigating the "true" facts...

Is there anything stated in this post that is incorrect?

If so, please advise?

Well, as long as you asked....

Your definition of a Type III MSD is incorrect and misleading. It bears no resemblance to the actual definition in the CFRs, the governing rules cited by both the USCG and the EPA:

ramblinrod post #90
First of all, let's start with proper definitions.

A) "Typical Marine Head" A certified, and approved, type III MSD (marine sanitation device) for effluent pump out with approved devices, and delivery to proper municipal waste treatment/disposal, or proper and legal open water discharge where permitted.

While this definition may fit an anti-Compost Head narrative, it is not the proper/legal definition which is:

Type III is a device that prevents the overboard discharge of treated or untreated sewage or any waste derived from sewage. This type of device is typically a holding tank and may include other types of technology including incineration, recirculation, and composting.

With all due respect, I find it difficult to reconcile inconsistencies such as the above with statements of being a subject matter expert and skilled marine professional who charges for this type of work.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by mvweebles

Rod - aren't you the guy who has repeatedly stated Compost Heads are not Type III MSDs, despite a clearly stated USCG citation to the contrary?

Again, here is the link:

USCG See 33 CFR 159.12(a) and 33 CFR 159.53(c)

Approved MSDs: There are three different types of MSDs that can be certified by the U.S. Coast Guard to meet the requirements in 33 CFR Part 159, each having its own design, certification, and discharge criteria. For more information see 33 CFR 159.53.

Type I is a flow through discharge device that produces effluent having a fecal coliform bacteria count not greater than 1,000 per 100 milliliters and no visible floating solids. This type of device is typically a physical/chemical based system that relies on maceration and chlorination. Type I MSDs are issued a Certificate of Approval.
Type II is a flow through discharge device that produces effluent having a fecal coliform bacteria count not greater than 200 per 100 milliliters and suspended solids not greater than 150 milligrams per liter. This type of device is typically a biological or aerobic digestion based system.
Type III is a device that prevents the overboard discharge of treated or untreated sewage or any waste derived from sewage. This type of device is typically a holding tank and may include other types of technology including incineration, recirculation, and composting.

The composting bin and the pee catcher are the devices that prevent the overboard discharge of the sewage. A bucket will also suffice. The key is that the sewage not be discharged overboard, as long as the wastes are retained onboard Type III is satisfied. Now if you take your pee catcher and empty it overboard you thence no longer have fulfilled the Type III classification. It is the act of discharging sewage overboard that makes the sewage holding device not Type III compliant. If you take the pee bottle and discharge the pee into a landbased sanitation system, a toilet connected to a a municipal sewage system or a septic system or a holding tank that will be pumped out then the discharge of the pee is legal. Discharging pee into the water or dumping it onto soil is not legal [except beyond the proscribed distance from a shore]. Ditto as to the compost.

Of issue is whether the local laws will allow one to dump the compost into the municipal land fill and waste collection handling stream. Most all State sanitation laws allow for one to put the compost into your garden, typically requiring the compost to be buried at least 6 to 12 inches below the surface and to not be used in food production garden beds. Essentially similar to depositing the wastes as if it was being discharged into a septic systems drainfield.

Reality Check Time! Human wastes are routinely disposed of in municipal waste collection streams, i.e., your garbage bin. Such waste is in the form of diapers, be that infant / toddler diapers or adult incontinence diapers. I know of no laws that restrict the disposal of diapers into the standard waste collection stream. An estimated 27.4 BILLION disposable diapers are used each year in the USA, resulting in about 3.4 million tons of used diapers adding to landfills each year.

Emptying a compost head is simply not a major or icky chore, less unpleasant than changing a diaper or picking up your dog's doo, or cleaning a cat's box, albeit I dislike having pets onboard because one does not need to clean up after they do their business. Cat's being much less of a challenge than a boat dog. I love my pet's but they are not welcome aboard my boats.

Portapotties of all kinds prevent the overboard discharge of the wastes. Heck a bedpan or a chamber pot, will suffice so long as it is not discharged overboard. A Luggableloo will suffice, but such devices do tend to emit objectionable odors in a boat head when the lid is lifted. At least the LuggableLoo has a sealable lid and a tote handle. And beats finding a Boybush.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Approved MSDs: There are three different types of MSDs that can be certified by the U.S. Coast Guard to meet the requirements in 33 CFR Part 159, each having its own design, certification, and discharge criteria. For more information see 33 CFR 159.53.

Type I is a flow through discharge device that produces effluent having a fecal coliform bacteria count not greater than 1,000 per 100 milliliters and no visible floating solids. This type of device is typically a physical/chemical based system that relies on maceration and chlorination. Type I MSDs are issued a Certificate of Approval.
Type II is a flow through discharge device that produces effluent having a fecal coliform bacteria count not greater than 200 per 100 milliliters and suspended solids not greater than 150 milligrams per liter. This type of device is typically a biological or aerobic digestion based system.
Type III is a device that prevents the overboard discharge of treated or untreated sewage or any waste derived from sewage. This type of device is typically a holding tank and may include other types of technology including incineration, recirculation, and composting.

The composting bin and the pee catcher are the devices that prevent the overboard discharge of the sewage. A bucket will also suffice. The key is that the sewage not be discharged overboard, as long as the wastes are retained onboard Type III is satisfied. Now if you take your pee catcher and empty it overboard you thence no longer have fulfilled the Type III classification. It is the act of discharging sewage overboard that makes the sewage holding device not Type III compliant. If you take the pee bottle and discharge the pee into a landbased sanitation system, a toilet connected to a a municipal sewage system or a septic system or a holding tank that will be pumped out then the discharge of the pee is legal. Discharging pee into the water or dumping it onto soil is not legal [except beyond the proscribed distance from a shore]. Ditto as to the compost.

Of issue is whether the local laws will allow one to dump the compost into the municipal land fill and waste collection handling stream. Most all State sanitation laws allow for one to put the compost into your garden, typically requiring the compost to be buried at least 6 to 12 inches below the surface and to not be used in food production garden beds. Essentially similar to depositing the wastes as if it was being discharged into a septic systems drainfield.

Reality Check Time! Human wastes are routinely disposed of in municipal waste collection streams, i.e., your garbage bin. Such waste is in the form of diapers, be that infant / toddler diapers or adult incontinence diapers. I know of no laws that restrict the disposal of diapers into the standard waste collection stream. An estimated 27.4 BILLION disposable diapers are used each year in the USA, resulting in about 3.4 million tons of used diapers adding to landfills each year.

Emptying a compost head is simply not a major or icky chore, less unpleasant than changing a diaper or picking up your dog's doo, or cleaning a cat's box, albeit I dislike having pets onboard because one does not need to clean up after they do their business. Cat's being much less of a challenge than a boat dog. I love my pet's but they are not welcome aboard my boats.

Portapotties of all kinds prevent the overboard discharge of the wastes. Heck a bedpan or a chamber pot, will suffice so long as it is not discharged overboard. A Luggableloo will suffice, but such devices do tend to emit objectionable odors in a boat head when the lid is lifted. At least the LuggableLoo has a sealable lid and a tote handle. And beats finding a Boybush.

the real funny part of it all is that I can drop trou and do my business over the side legally ( indecent exposure not withstanding ) and its legal . I can pee overboard with impunity but pee into a jug or bucket and its suddenly a hazard?
Yes I know the rules but sometimes the arguments make no sense in the real world.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by smj

You use two words, expect and suspect, which mean you have no first hand knowledge of the system and it’s workings. Your opinions would carry more clout if you actually had experience.

What?

I have lots of knowledge and actual experience, directly and indirectly related to the installation, use, maintenance, and disposal of "Effluent Separating Toilets" and many other manner of waste treatment; probably more than you do.

I correctly use the terms "expect" or "suspect" when comparing an individual use case to the general norm. Note that I asked the individual to correct any error in my assumption of their use case, and as yet, none have been identified.

Based on my direct knowledge and experience with the technology and commercial products available, I suspect that the individuals use case matches the general norms quite closely, as I expected and suspected.

But I stand to be corrected by them, if any of my assumptions regarding their individual use case, were in fact incorrect. (I highly doubt they are.)

Did you see anything incorrect in that post?

If not, then I "suspect" from your perspective, it stands correct, accurate, and factual, otherwise I would "expect" you to take every opportunity to correct me.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by newhaul

the real funny part of it all is that I can drop trou and do my business over the side legally ( indecent exposure not withstanding ) and its legal . I can pee overboard with impunity but pee into a jug or bucket and its suddenly a hazard?
Yes I know the rules but sometimes the arguments make no sense in the real world.

Actually, it appears you don't really know the rules.

By the rules, if you have a toilet aboard, any overboard discharge of human waste within territorial or inland waters is illegal.

By the rules, your home made toilet is illegal.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by newhaul

the real funny part of it all is that I can drop trou and do my business over the side legally ( indecent exposure not withstanding ) and its legal . I can pee overboard with impunity but pee into a jug or bucket and its suddenly a hazard?
Yes I know the rules but sometimes the arguments make no sense in the real world.

Ya might wish to reconsider that.

All States and most every municipality has local ordinances that apply.

By way of example to California State law and judicial practices and the City of Chicago's ordinance.

http://https://fenbertlaw.com/2019/0...ce-in-chicago/

The City of Chicago has an ordinance against urinating or defecating in public (Chicago Codified Ordinance 8-4-081). A violation of this ordinance can cost a defendant a fine or even time in jail.

The ordinance states that: “No person shall urinate or defecate on the public way, or on any outdoor public property, or on any outdoor private property. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b), any person who violates this section shall be fined not less than $100.00 nor more than $500.00, or shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five days nor more than ten days or by both such fine and imprisonment.”

So even if you are on private property but are outside, you can be given a ticket for public urination.

The ordinance goes on to state: “Any person who violates this section while within 800 feet of a parade route which is not open to traffic shall be fined not less than $500.00 nor more than $1,000.00 or shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five days nor more than ten days or by both such fine and imprisonment.” Think about St. Patrick’s Day parades where a lot of drinking occurs, bar hopping, etc.

Oftentimes, those charged with public urination were caught after or during a night of drinking and are worried about the offense appearing in a criminal background check. While this is not a felony that may prevent your employment, it is an embarrassing piece of information to have on your record as you are searching for or starting a new job.

Furthermore, as public records become more and more available on the internet, it is possible that anyone can find information like this without even having to pay for a criminal background check.

http://https://www.greghillassociate...jail-time.html

What Punishment Do I Face for Public Urination? Jail Time?
Our office often is asked the above question from a potential client, usually one who was cited for public urination following an evening of alcohol consumption. My answer is usually, “I apologize for sounding like a lawyer, but the answer is ‘it matters.”
Summary in 50 Words or Less: Public urination is punishable as a misdemeanor, often under local municipal codes. The maximum punishment varies by the city or county at issue, but if prosecuted under Penal Code § 372 as public nuisance, it is punishable by a maximum of six months in county jail and a $500 fine, plus penalties and assessments. More commonly, however, probation is offered with no jail time, a plea to an amended charge as an infraction, or some form of diversion.
The reason that punishment varies is because public urination is often prosecuted under municipal code sections, rather than the Penal Code. The municipal codes addressing the issue usually impose a fine of approximately $300. Municipalities often have a keen interest in prohibiting such conduct in its business district near restaurants where the image of the city is important.

It is an academic curiosity that no California state statute directly prohibits public urination, except Penal Code § 640, which prohibits urination on a form of public transportation (Penal Code § 640). However, public urination is widely considered a form of public nuisance under Penal Code §§ 370 and 372. Public urination can also be considered disorderly conduct under Penal Code § 647.

In unusual circumstances, public urination can be charged as indecent exposure under Penal Code § 314, but such a charge is often a mistake because section 314 requires some form of lewd conduct (and a conviction for violating 314 can require registration for life as a sex offender under Penal Code § 290).

The punishment one faces depends upon the code section under which the charge is brought, but of all the above code sections, the maximum jail time is one year. When the offense is a first-time offense and takes place in an alley way or a parking lot, as is most common, there is usually no jail time involved.

More commonly, the client will face a fine of $100 to $500, plus penalties and assessments, payable to the court. The penalties and assessments boost the total payment amount by about three times. The client may also be placed on informal, or summary probation for between one year and three years, depending upon the circumstances. The client may also be required to serve community service of five to thirty days.

When alcohol is involved in the incident, it is wise for one to seek a dismissal by offering to have the client perform a certain number of Alcoholic Anonymous (AA) classes and, sometimes, community service or even community labor. The client may offer to write an essay concerning why public urination is considered a crime. The prosecution may then offer a dismissal or an amendment to the complaint to allege an infraction for violation of Penal Code § 415(2) (Disturbing the Peace by playing loud music), or even Penal Code § 602 (Trespassing).

An infraction is much preferred to a conviction for a misdemeanor because there is no probation associated with an infraction. With an infraction, one simply pays a fine, with penalties and assessments to the court. Usually, the total payment is about $550.

If one has a prior conviction for conduct that suggests public urination, one should expect the plea bargain offered to be far more burdensome. Community service and fines will certainly be more than minimal.

[mvweebles]

Originally Posted by Montanan

if you take your pee catcher and empty it overboard you thence no longer have fulfilled the Type III classification. It is the act of discharging sewage overboard that makes the sewage holding device not Type III compliant:

While I understand your point, it's not quite right. A Type III MSD is a Type III MSD. It either retains sewage or it doesn't. Full stop.

I believe what you are saying that if you take that sewage and dump it overboard inside the 3-mile limit, you are in violation - but of a different code that covers traditional heads and compost heads equally. Section 312(g)(2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act provides that untreated effluent shall not be discharged. Violations are subject to up to $2000 penalty for each violation (there is explicit discretion provided for enforcement based on the circumstances).

If your point is that, given the 2-3 day urine retention, a compost head owner is much more likely to dump overboard than a holding tank boat, intuitively, I have to agree with you just as I'd agree that a boat with a 5-gallon holding tank is more likely to dump illegally than a boat with a 50-gal holding tank. We can argue the harm that causes, but the violation of the Act is clear and applies equally (though may be enforced differently based on circumstances).

The issue isn't whether a Compost Head is an MSD - it is. It may be an inconvenient truth for some, but it is a truth. A boat owner has no obligation beyond having an approved MSD if they have a head. From a code/enforcement perspective, a Compost Head is a holding tank and there is no legal difference between it and the holding tank on a boat with a traditional marine wet-head system.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Approved MSDs: There are three different types of MSDs that can be certified by the U.S. Coast Guard to meet the requirements in 33 CFR Part 159, each having its own design, certification, and discharge criteria. For more information see 33 CFR 159.53.

Type I is a flow through discharge device that produces effluent having a fecal coliform bacteria count not greater than 1,000 per 100 milliliters and no visible floating solids. This type of device is typically a physical/chemical based system that relies on maceration and chlorination. Type I MSDs are issued a Certificate of Approval.
Type II is a flow through discharge device that produces effluent having a fecal coliform bacteria count not greater than 200 per 100 milliliters and suspended solids not greater than 150 milligrams per liter. This type of device is typically a biological or aerobic digestion based system.
Type III is a device that prevents the overboard discharge of treated or untreated sewage or any waste derived from sewage. This type of device is typically a holding tank and may include other types of technology including incineration, recirculation, and composting.

The composting bin and the pee catcher are the devices that prevent the overboard discharge of the sewage. A bucket will also suffice. The key is that the sewage not be discharged overboard, as long as the wastes are retained onboard Type III is satisfied. Now if you take your pee catcher and empty it overboard you thence no longer have fulfilled the Type III classification. It is the act of discharging sewage overboard that makes the sewage holding device not Type III compliant. If you take the pee bottle and discharge the pee into a landbased sanitation system, a toilet connected to a a municipal sewage system or a septic system or a holding tank that will be pumped out then the discharge of the pee is legal. Discharging pee into the water or dumping it onto soil is not legal [except beyond the proscribed distance from a shore]. Ditto as to the compost.

Of issue is whether the local laws will allow one to dump the compost into the municipal land fill and waste collection handling stream. Most all State sanitation laws allow for one to put the compost into your garden, typically requiring the compost to be buried at least 6 to 12 inches below the surface and to not be used in food production garden beds. Essentially similar to depositing the wastes as if it was being discharged into a septic systems drainfield.

Reality Check Time! Human wastes are routinely disposed of in municipal waste collection streams, i.e., your garbage bin. Such waste is in the form of diapers, be that infant / toddler diapers or adult incontinence diapers. I know of no laws that restrict the disposal of diapers into the standard waste collection stream. An estimated 27.4 BILLION disposable diapers are used each year in the USA, resulting in about 3.4 million tons of used diapers adding to landfills each year.

Emptying a compost head is simply not a major or icky chore, less unpleasant than changing a diaper or picking up your dog's doo, or cleaning a cat's box, albeit I dislike having pets onboard because one does not need to clean up after they do their business. Cat's being much less of a challenge than a boat dog. I love my pet's but they are not welcome aboard my boats.

Portapotties of all kinds prevent the overboard discharge of the wastes. Heck a bedpan or a chamber pot, will suffice so long as it is not discharged overboard. A Luggableloo will suffice, but such devices do tend to emit objectionable odors in a boat head when the lid is lifted. At least the LuggableLoo has a sealable lid and a tote handle. And beats finding a Boybush.

Nope, the luggable loo pictured is not a Type III MSD.

At least in Ontario, porta-potties of any description are illegal unless they are fastened to the boat, and plumbed for pumpout at shoreside facilities.

[smj]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

What?



I have lots of knowledge and actual experience, directly and indirectly related to the installation, use, maintenance, and disposal of "Effluent Separating Toilets" and many other manner of waste treatment; probably more than you do.



I correctly use the terms "expect" or "suspect" when comparing an individual use case to the general norm. Note that I asked the individual to correct any error in my assumption of their use case, and as yet, none have been identified.



Based on my direct knowledge and experience with the technology and commercial products available, I suspect that the individuals use case matches the general norms quite closely, as I expected and suspected.



But I stand to be corrected by them, if any of my assumptions regarding their individual use case, were in fact incorrect. (I highly doubt they are.)



Did you see anything incorrect in that post?



If not, then I "suspect" from your perspective, it stands correct, accurate, and factual, otherwise I would "expect" you to take every opportunity to correct me.

Your wrong on points #1 and #3.
Here’s the painful process of dumping the solids out of the C-Head. Look out for all that toxic waste traveling through the boat!

https://youtu.be/jiUUXOAJ1pM
17 seconds out of the life of a composter owner. Ive dealt with much more toxic waste and it’s taken much more time dealing with a pump out.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by newhaul

placing the partially composted solids into a " dumpster " inside of a compostable bag. Is much better environmentally than a used disposable baby diaper.

Says who? (Other than a composting fanatic.) Please cite any accredited scientific evidence.

For example Ontario Canada has 4 " treatment" plants .

This is total nonsense.

I would rather send my partially composted solids to a land fill where it can complete the composting and become inert.

Problem is, when covered and under pressure (as common in a landfill) it doesn't.

As to the urine well unless a person has a uti it is basically sterile and full of ammonia ( which by the way is an antibacterial) .

No! It is possible that urine be sterile when in the body (if no UTI exists). If it was sterile to begin with (no guarantees). However, the instant it is peed out, it is no longer sterile and bacteria colonies can thrive in it.

As to carrying the solids through the vessel well it is contained inside of a hard plastic container . So with the lid solidly in place there is no spillage possible. Same with the urine containment vessel.

Well, when removing the urine container from the toilet in a rolling sea it is highly possible it will be spilled.

Additionally, if one opens the toilet to remove the feces / fibre container inside the vessel there is a good chance of spillage in the vessel.

The alternative solution being to carry the entire heading including urine container and feces / fibre container, through the vessel from head to exit and location chosen for dismantling, IF that particular brand model secures the urine container well enough (some don't), else it must be removed in advance to carry out the toilet.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by mvweebles

Rod - aren't you the guy who has repeatedly stated Compost Heads are not Type III MSDs, despite a clearly stated USCG citation to the contrary?

Again, here is the link:

USCG See 33 CFR 159.12(a) and 33 CFR 159.53(c)

Nope, never stated that once.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Actually, it appears you don't really know the rules.

By the rules, if you have a toilet aboard, any overboard discharge of human waste within territorial or inland waters is illegal.

By the rules, your home made toilet is illegal.

you really should read the rules better then .