Disposing of Solid Waste From a Dessicating Toilet

[capt jgw]

So you have a traditional pump out head and always use the marina pump out. What happens to the contents then? They go to the municipal water treatment plant, and if it's been raining recently, they dump it into the water. Untreated, millions of gallons from the whole city. Happens all the time and they never get punished for it. I like my system better.

[N Coast Murray]

Originally Posted by dlj

The term "stereotyping" seems appropriate here.

dj

In this case, stereotyping might be overly generous as it suggests at least two points of view were considered...how about monotyping?

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by capt jgw

So you have a traditional pump out head and always use the marina pump out. What happens to the contents then? They go to the municipal water treatment plant, and if it's been raining recently, they dump it into the water. Untreated, millions of gallons from the whole city. Happens all the time and they never get punished for it. I like my system better.

How much that happens depends on the area. Places with combined storm and sanitary sewers often end up dumping in heavy rain, while areas with them separated have far fewer issues with that. And a few places (including Rochester where we're based) have built large underground collection tunnels to handle the excess in heavy rain events and allow the processing to catch up later (which made overflows much less common).

[sailingharry]

Originally Posted by dlj

Well I must say, I'm flattered. I've never been called a "goodie two shoes" ever in my life. Quite the opposite in fact. But hey, there's a first time for everything...



But just a question - does nitrogen pollution not exist with other systems??? Please provide details.



dj

Direct overboard discharge doesn't mitigate any pollution and is a worst case scenario.

Nitrogen pollution is definitely a concern with Lectrasan systems, as it passes untreated overboard. You can make a very serious argument on the cost/benefit analysis of removing that nitrogen in other ways, but you can't deny that it goes overboard.

Nitrogen pollution is a near zero concern with holding tank systems. Modern sewer treatment plants produce water that meets drinking water standards. Literally. There are events that result in large spills, but unless your boat sewage happens to be caught up in that particular event, your sewage is treated to a nutrient-free and sterile condition.

Composting heads send the solids to a landfill. There is no practical difference between sending a gallon of motor oil to a landfill and sending a gallon of desiccated waste to a landfill. Both will occupy a gallon worth of space for the next million years. They will not degrade, they will not become clean, they will never return to the state of functioning land. The landfill will have to be maintained, operated, and monitored 50 generations from now. In that regard, a composting toilet is far worse than direct discharge, where sometime in the next few months it will be 100% degraded to a neutral state.

Cost / benefit discussions are an entirely different arena. If you look at the dollars that are spent in the aggregate to collect marine sewage, compared to the number of gallons, there are probably better places to spend society's dollars. And for some of us, it takes about 2 gallons of diesel to go to a pump out station to remove 20 gallons of sewage. No one has ever considered if running a diesel engine 6 miles each way to a pump out station is better for the environment than pumping a holding tank in the middle of the Chesapeake. But those are political questions, not scientific questions.

[sailingharry]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

In particular, the weak point seems to be adequate urine storage and then disposal that doesn't involve "just pour it over the side". Which, by the way, is just as illegal in an NDZ as dumping a holding tank.

Actually, an NDZ is a grossly misunderstood policy. Most especially, it is misunderstood by the activists that push for it. An NDZ affects an extremely small percentage of boaters -- it only affects those that use a Lectrosan. Nobody else is affected. For everyone with holding tanks or urine bottles on a composting head, the entire United States out to the 3 Mile line already prohibits discharge. For all those boaters, an NDZ is indistinguishable from the rest of the United States.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

Actually, an NDZ is a grossly misunderstood policy. Most especially, it is misunderstood by the activists that push for it. An NDZ affects an extremely small percentage of boaters -- it only affects those that use a Lectrosan. Nobody else is affected. For everyone with holding tanks or urine bottles on a composting head, the entire United States out to the 3 Mile line already prohibits discharge. For all those boaters, an NDZ is indistinguishable from the rest of the United States.

There are also areas where there's an NDZ even beyond 3 miles from shore (such as the Great Lakes, Long Island Sound, etc.).

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by dlj

I'm not understanding this particular logic - just because someone decides to use a composting head does not equate with them dumping overboard anymore than someone with a standard marine head dumping their black water tank overboard.

Dumping with either system where you aren't permitted is equally irresponsible. I'm not sure why this has to be in a thread about using a composting head.

It seems to me the advice should be - in the composting heads, you will have X numbers of days with the urine collector, you may wish to purchase a second (or third or...) to cover your sailing needs....

So from what I'm reading, according to you, all folks that go to composting are "goodie two shoes", use "whataboutisms", and perform blatant known illegal acts.

The term "stereotyping" seems appropriate here.

dj

Let me rephrase this: when talking about illegal discharge of urine from a composting toilet, then one can not justify it by pointing at other types of legal/illegal discharge. That is Whataboutism. What others do or not do, does not change anything about ones own illegal actions.

Other legal/illegal activity does not justify ones own illegal activity.

[Wotname]

All this talk about legal and illegal activities around taking a dump at sea reminds me of - “rules are for the obeyance of fools, and the guidance of wise men” attributed to Harry Day, the Royal Flying Corps (and others).

One can decide for oneself if one would be foolish or wise but do not expect agreement of others when self evaluating.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Wotname

All this talk about legal and illegal activities around taking a dump at sea reminds me of - “rules are for the obeyance of fools, and the guidance of wise men” attributed to Harry Day, the Royal Flying Corps (and others).

One can decide for oneself if one would be foolish or wise but do not expect agreement of others when self evaluating.

Well, I had thought to be called out on what I myself have and do, but I’m glad nobody did

[dlj]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

Direct overboard discharge doesn't mitigate any pollution and is a worst case scenario.

Nitrogen pollution is definitely a concern with Lectrasan systems, as it passes untreated overboard. You can make a very serious argument on the cost/benefit analysis of removing that nitrogen in other ways, but you can't deny that it goes overboard.

Nitrogen pollution is a near zero concern with holding tank systems. Modern sewer treatment plants produce water that meets drinking water standards. Literally. There are events that result in large spills, but unless your boat sewage happens to be caught up in that particular event, your sewage is treated to a nutrient-free and sterile condition.

Composting heads send the solids to a landfill. There is no practical difference between sending a gallon of motor oil to a landfill and sending a gallon of desiccated waste to a landfill. Both will occupy a gallon worth of space for the next million years. They will not degrade, they will not become clean, they will never return to the state of functioning land. The landfill will have to be maintained, operated, and monitored 50 generations from now. In that regard, a composting toilet is far worse than direct discharge, where sometime in the next few months it will be 100% degraded to a neutral state.

Cost / benefit discussions are an entirely different arena. If you look at the dollars that are spent in the aggregate to collect marine sewage, compared to the number of gallons, there are probably better places to spend society's dollars. And for some of us, it takes about 2 gallons of diesel to go to a pump out station to remove 20 gallons of sewage. No one has ever considered if running a diesel engine 6 miles each way to a pump out station is better for the environment than pumping a holding tank in the middle of the Chesapeake. But those are political questions, not scientific questions.

Some difficult logic jumps in your reply - first you state direct discharge is the worst possible scenario, then you go on to say in the next few months it will be 100% degraded to a neutral state.

Not all solid waste from composters go to landfills. They can also be composted - nice thing about composters is you actually have choices and options.

Next your blurb about compost going to landfills and never decomposing is simply flat out wrong.

Your whole post is sensationalism at its best.

dj

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by dlj

Some difficult logic jumps in your reply - first you state direct discharge is the worst possible scenario, then you go on to say in the next few months it will be 100% degraded to a neutral state.

Not all solid waste from composters go to landfills. They can also be composted - nice thing about composters is you actually have choices and options.

Next your blurb about compost going to landfills and never decomposing is simply flat out wrong.

Your whole post is sensationalism at its best.

dj

I was going to respond similarly, but then I decided it wasn’t worth the effort. I really wish we could just have a discussion about the use of these tools, absent of all the uninformed opinion.

[Chotu]

You can always count on a lot of poo in a thread about composting/desiccating heads

[dlj]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I was going to respond similarly, but then I decided it wasn’t worth the effort. I really wish we could just have a discussion about the use of these tools, absent of all the uninformed opinion.

I spent a couple hours thinking if it was worth responding to or not. I just couldn't help myself. The part I didn't even address is the somehow magical transformation of all "bad elments" in the treatment plants suddenly being transformed into pure H2O. Alchemy at it's finest!

For sure - why can we not have a direct, honest conversation on this subject? That's the part that I cannot wrap my head around.

Composting heads are not for everyone. They aren't going to displace conventional heads. Both work. Both work well for what they are designed for. What's the big deal about just having a discussion about best practices and what one may or may not wish to install.... Baffles me...

Originally Posted by Chotu

You can always count on a lot of poo in a thread about composting/desiccating heads

LMFAO - that is hilarious! You just made my day! I'll be laughing on this one all day!!!!

dj

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Gord, you’re argument is a classic reductio ad absurdum. The point is that the landfill systems have been designed to accept similar, but much worse, waste. No one can rationally get bent out of shape about putting a tiny amount of desiccated waste into the system.

Another way to look at it:


Where do the solids go from a POTW?


Most of the poop settles out in the primary clarifiers and is removed for anaerobic digestion and drying, followed by landfilling. Bugs get rid of the rest of pollutants, including poop that didn't settle, and are removed in the secondary clarifier. They too go to anaerobic digestion followed by drying and the landfill. A steady string of trucks hauls out semi-dried waste from most POTWs.



Desiccating toilet waste is mixed with wood shavings or similar, mostly dried, and then goes to the landfill (unless buried or some other) where it anaerobically decomposes. The waste from the POTW is treated to reduce pathogens, the land fill is sealed and the leachate treated.



Really, not a big difference, assuming the material is handled responsibly. Spills can happen in both cases. Both can be very safe. It's all on the details.

[wyb2]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Let me rephrase this: when talking about illegal discharge of urine from a composting toilet, then one can not justify it by pointing at other types of legal/illegal discharge. That is Whataboutism. What others do or not do, does not change anything about ones own illegal actions.

Other legal/illegal activity does not justify ones own illegal activity.

But it is relevant to point to the alternative to frame the discussion in reality.

No one that chooses to chime in to argue that compositing heads are bad is arguing that you should instead have no head, or should instead have a full self-contained treatment system. They are arguing for the status-quo alternative, a manual or electric wet head with a holding tank.

Whataboutism: ‘What will you do with the urine where it’s illegal to dump and there are no availability facilities’ - ‘Well what about 2-stroke motors? They pollute a ton where it’s illegal to dump!’

Relevant point: ‘What will you do with the urine where it’s illegal to dump and there are no availability facilities’ - ‘The same thing a boat with a wet head does’ (i.e. store it, or dump it illegally)